[gordianknot]

Noise != usage. Don't confuse attention with popularity. I think about the language and post comments about it on forums and read great Lisp code (e.g. Arc), but I'd never actually use it for anything non-trivial. Why? Because I write web apps and existing Lisps don't make that easier or more fun.

The only (!) thing Lisp has to do is efficiently and absolutely abstract away XML, CSS, and JavaScript. No Lisp is going to get any uptake otherwise. We could do this with Arc.

[gruseom]

I'm interested in why you think that Lisp systems haven't yet efficiently abstracted away from HTML/CSS/JS. I work on such a system every day and the abstractions seem pretty efficient to me.

[gordianknot]

Maybe they have. What system are you using?

[gruseom]

I use Parenscript and LML2. There are a profusion of such libraries (although for CSS I wrote my own simple thing). I'm very happy with the abstractions I'm able to layer on top of them with macros.

One thing it took me a while to realize about the Lisp world is why there tends not to be standard frameworks or libraries for some of this stuff. The answer is that, for certain kinds of problems (basically, anything involving metaprogramming), it's actually easier to solve your problem yourself than to learn someone else's framework and then use it to solve your problem. A good example would be unit testing... there are probably a dozen unit testing frameworks, none standard, none much used. The reason is that the frameworks don't add much value over what a programmer can easily do for himself, with all the advantages that implies. I think this may also be why web app frameworks are less prominent in the Lisp world.

This is not the case with all libraries, of course. CL-PPCRE adds huge value, to pick an obvious example, but not in the class of problem I'm talking about.

[tlrobinson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Parenscript doesn't abstract away HTML, CSS, JavaScript, it just lets you write HTML, CSS, and JavaScript using a Lispy language.

This is very different than abstracting away HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, which is where I think the real problem is.

I shouldn't have to learn 3+ of different languages (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc), AND 3+ different variations of each (Mozilla, WebKit, IE, etc), AND multiple versions of each, AND another abstraction layer (Parenscript) just for basically macros, just to write a web application.

[gruseom]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before! No, it doesn't abstract these things away in the sense that compilers abstract away machine language. That is, you still have to know about them. Is that what you mean?

If so, it's a fair distinction. Probably it would be more accurate if I said abstract over rather than abstract away. We can get rid of a lot of repetition this way, but not a lot of the details that remain after that. Still, that's a big deal; better than anything else I've seen by far. So while "abstract away" may be an overstatement, I think that "just lets you write HTML, CSS, and JavaScript using a Lispy language" is an understatement. It doesn't just let you write those things - you don't need Lisp to do that. Similarly, saying "just for basically macros" (my emphasis) reads like an oxymoron to me. Macros are a big deal!

If you can do better, I definitely want to know. But my definition of "better" includes being usable in a standard browser, and "usable" includes performant.

[pchristensen]

Weblocks does this (sort of). I've just read about it, not actually used it much.

http://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/ui-dsl.html

[KirinDave]

I can't help but think that people who want to replace HTML+CSS+JS haven't written a widely used web application before, because the idea seems so absurdly impractical and would become such an incredible time sink.

[gordianknot]

I'd tend to agree on those who want to replace HTML/CSS/JS with some other abstraction. What I'm suggesting is that they're arbitrarily divided and should be unified under one syntax, which then compiles into the served "bytecode." JSON would probably make the most sense. But, as you suggest, it would take some time to get it right. So I'm sticking to doing it by hand, all divided up, for now. Maybe after our startup launches...

[KirinDave]

I think even just MzScheme could become viable if the untyped stuff gets a bit more polished and there is just a lib everyone can agree on called "pragmatic.ss" that pulls in the relevant SRFIs.

Most of lisps problems these days stem from social issues and logistical issues. The core tech is excruciatingly sound, and the language itself is great.

To someone out in the startup circles, it almost seems like Lisp and Scheme focus more on being a standard than being a pragmatic and global platform. While noble, this is not the path to massive popularity. Some people might be okay with that, but it seems to me like you could serve both goals and end up with an overall better product.

[gruseom]

should be unified under one syntax, which then compiles

You do get that this is exactly what Lisp hackers who build web apps do?

[coffeemug]

CSS is very difficult to replace with an abstraction because it's too quirky. Compiling a high level language down to CSS without human intelligence is so difficult, it's completely impractical.

HTML, on the other hand, is easy to abstract. I'm glad I did it in Weblocks, it saves me an enormous amount of time. ASP.NET uses this strategy (use the DataGrid control for a while, and then try coding without it).

JS is somewhere in the middle.

[tlrobinson]

I can't help but think you haven't written a sufficiently complicated client side web application.