anyone used gtk-server, say, with a scripting language or any language? it's basically a program that you talk to through a pipe or TCP connection and it does all the gtk stuff for you. i'm using it at the moment; it's pretty kick ass. you can just create a window from your terminal.
ie if you want to whip up some simple gui for whatever reason in bash or perl, this could be really helpful
>>1
I remember the gtk-server author was recommending newLisp when I first read his site a couple of years ago. newLisp is
-Designed by an experienced programmer with a PhD, not a
college student taking breaks from WoW to hack a compiler.
-Meant to make Lisp more Python-like.
-200KB executable.
-Well-documented.
-Used by a lot of smart hobbyists (like the gtk-server
author).
-Hated by purists because it is not Common Lisp
conformant.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 17:08 ID:+I4k/9FJ
I had a look at newLISP. Things I like and dislike:
+ Lisp-1
- Fail scoping. That "dynamic scoped except if you create a context" thing is bullshit.
- Unbound symbols get automatically initialized to nil
+ Implicit indexing, though I'd have much prefered a special syntax that expands to some macros according to some macros and pattern matching system that would allow you to do e.g. (display my-list[element]) .
What do you fags think about newLISP?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 17:26 ID:Xd8P7LUM
>>18
I think the automatic initialization to nil keeps me far, far away. I might see about using it for some scripting (because of the startup time), as I need to do a bit of stream processing on text soon. Guile seems to be even faster though. The fact that the newLISP faggots haven't yet caught on to the fact that Lisp isn't normally written in all caps makes me doubtful that they have any insight on Lisp.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 17:38 ID:+I4k/9FJ
It's the stupid scoping what scares me. Automatically initializing variables sucks, but all languages suck in some ways. Scheme has some suckage spots (though very few), and Common Lisp has many, so I'm willing to put up with that. However, I'm not willing to put up with retarded scoping rules. Lexical scoping or GTFO.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 17:58 ID:Xd8P7LUM
>>20
I can handle the scoping, myself. Sure, it's a little stupid, but you just have to create a context (whatever that is) and then not worry about it. Hell, this is Lisp, so you could even write your own function definer that did it for you. But you can never guard yourself 100% against mistyping symbols.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 20:31 ID:YFQDKt+s
newlisp sucks. his author sucks. I write better newlisp code than him.