Didn't we had something similar without the hipster-look-how-cool-is-my-ruby-dsl-it-reads-like-english-though-it-leaves-not-too-much-space-for-eventual-modifications-so-it-will-surely-cause-some-major-problems-and/or-backward-incompatibilities-when-we're-going-to-extend-the-framework syntax?
There were already a bunch of similar environments, although none that were popular enough to actually catch /prog/'s eye.
Don't see how this one differs from the other ones as the documentation is somewhat incomplete for now. The only way to actually see what it is is to look at the source when you're using it, but that's only fair, you have to do that for a lot of the new libraries and I don't really complain because CL is easy to debug and extend.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-05 13:07
They extensively use Python-style decorators. I'm not sure I like it.
>>9-10
That's why I didn't comment on Clack's source code having a reader macro on & in >>5, just like I'm not mentioning now your lack of reading comprehension.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-05 19:35
>>4 They extensively use Python-style decorators.
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to Python: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.