Post #1308492
2026-02-19 22:17 UTC
@ShadSterling @agowa338 @blinry
"Thus if the person to whom my Java code is reflected back is a LISP programmer, it should be reflected back in idiomatic LISP syntax; if a Python programmer, in idiomatic Python syntax. Let us not, for goodness sake, get hung up about syntax; syntax is frosting on the top. What's important is that the programmer editing the code should edit something which is clearly understandable to him or her." -- me, obviously.
https://www.journeyman.cc/blog/posts-output/2006-02-20-postscarcity-software/
Replies (2)
-
@agowa338@chaos.social 2026-02-19 22:18
@simon_brooke @ShadSterling @blinry Sounds like you'll have a lot of fun trying to map the ASTs of the code in addition to making interpreters for all languages that aren't interpreted then...
-
@ShadSterling@mastodon.social 2026-02-20 00:47
@simon_brooke @agowa338 @blinry that’s way more ambitious than the runtime I dreamed of; part of the reason for making it one giant FFI is that, even aside from different runtime in-memory type representations, the different semantics and scoping rules make arbitrary translation extremely challenging. Encapsulation seemed to me more tractable. But methods written to be attached to objects of my dream runtime could be easier to manipulate that way