well, prolly jsx not xml, altho it seems to be valid xml

> it's also just honeysql but in xml Thing is, you can come up with similar things for anything. But it doesn't make that thing bad or XML good.

A difficult subject for this august Forum, for sure. Because in three years' time, the planet having re-shaped itself as it is wont to do, 99% of Clojure programs will probably be @U05H8N9V0HZ’s Yamlscript snippets. (In Cisco switches, Kubernetes declarations, etc.)

sorry

My yet unstated goal has always been ys as gateway drug to clj 🙂

@U0HG4EHMH you reminded me to post https://yamlscript.org/posts/advent-2023/dec-20/ in #news-and-articles

> it's also just honeysql but in xml > A reminder that "syntax doesn't matter" only goes so far...

@U05H8N9V0HZ Well I expect Yamlscript will "make the pie bigger" in some ways that have not yet been predicted.

certainly although I have been predicting that ys could be a huge deal for clojure exposure.

I've been leaning towards delaying the "ys is really clj" surprise when I write things lately. imho clojure is the most practical and wothwhile lisp today. even if not the most popular, it should be. also a very approachable FP language. I'd like to see unsuspecting yaml people find the new things they can do with yaml via ys, then peel back the covers only to find it's clojure that's doing it for them.

btw, when do people starting talking about clojure/conj 2024?

re Conj 2024: https://clojurians.slack.com/archives/C03RZGPG3/p1702349852019189

@U0HG4EHMH thx. fall 24 would be great. I was worried it was end of april. I really want to conj but I have euro stuff around then

Great story. Amused by the comment that C was not well adapted to VMS. In fact, VMS had a very wonderful BASIC, including exhaustive bindings to the operating-system features. Evidently, BASIC was the language you were intended to write utility programs in! But I am curious: was VMS oriented to BASIC (rather than C) as market differentiation, or because C was obscure and little-known outside Unix and DEC wanted to keep it that way, or because it was easier to make a compiler emit decent machine code if you could pre-optimize the BASIC primitives than the chaos of C, or for some other reason?

Well Emacs is an operating system / lisp machine that just happens to have editor features. As safe as (more so?) anything they would replace it with. Emacs can be run as a lisp interpreter rather than an editor and there are now specific command line options to do so

I'm scared of people on that thread that are not seeing the problem. I mean, the language itself is not a problem - but the fact that some work had to be done for the thing to just work and that it was a one-man-job with no comments and no documentation...