ArkScript
arkscript-lang.dev
Ackermann Array mapping Closures (let ackermann (fun (m n) { (if (> m 0) (if (= 0 n) (ackermann (- m 1) 1) (ackermann (- m 1) (ackermann m (- n 1)))) (+ 1 n)) })) (assert (= 509 (ackermann 3 6)) "(ackermann 3 6) == 509") # imports can be prefixed or qualified (import std.List :map) # define an array using [...] or (list ...) (let array [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10]) # functions are first class citizens! (let mapped (map array (fun (i) (* i i)))) (assert (= mapped [1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100]) "mapped is a list of squares") (let countdown-from (fun (x) # return a closure that captures "x" (fun (&x) { (set x (- x 1)) x }))) (let countdown-from-3 (countdown-from 3)) (print "Countdown " (countdown-from-3)) # 2 # each subsequent call to the closure mutate its state (print "Countdown " (countdown-from-3)) # 1

I’ve been working on this (not so little anymore) project for some time now, and I’m finally happy with the branding, UX and docs state.

It’s a scripting language I made at first as a toy, to learn new parsing methods, explore compiler optimizations, and go back to VM land where everything is low level and amazing (at least for me) ; it’s now a fully fledged language that can be used as a scripting language like Python or Ruby, and can also be very easily embedded inside a project, as one would do with Lua.

Let me know your thoughts and opinions on the project!

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    42·
    1 day ago

    Every time i see lisp i realize why it never caught on. A syntax only its creator could love.

    )))))))))))

    • nixfreak@sopuli.xyz
      21·
      13 hours ago

      Honestly once you understand that parentheses actually help you organize your code better, lisp syntax is nice to use. So what lisp version is arklisp? 1 or 2 1 is scheme like and 2 is Common Lisp like.

      • bitcrafter@programming.dev
        3·
        13 hours ago

        Except that in practice people also indent their code, making the parentheses redundant clutter, especially since the usual convention is to put all of the closing parentheses at the end where it hard to immediately match each one up visually with its corresponding opening parenthesis.

        My preference is for the way Haskell handles this, where essentially there is a syntax built on braces and semicolons that you can always fall back on, but most of the time you can just use indentation and it will figure things out just fine via built-in layout rules.

        Finally, it seems immediately apparent that this is a type-1 lisp given that there is only one syntax for assigning to symbols and it is used both for functions and for other values.