When you give Javascript examples, you seem to care a lot about jQuery (with good reasons, of course). Wouldn't it be possible to separate the Arc-that-compile-in-js and jQuery?

For instance:

  (def foo ()
    (alert "test"))

  $('.click_me').click(foo); 

Ideally, that would be also possible:

  $('.click_me').click((fn () (alert 'test'))); 

  $('.click_me').click([alert "test"]); 

  ; How to differentiate betweens javascript syntax or arc/js syntax?
  $.each([1,2,3], [alert _]); 

 

  $.each([1,2,3], ~[alert _]);

  $('.click_me').click( ~(fn () (alert "test")));

  $('.click_me').click( ~[alert 'test]);

  $('click_me').click( function(e) {
    ~(alert "test in js/arc") 
    alert("test in pure js");
  });

  $('.click_me').keydown( ~[here, _ would be bound to the event object]); 

  ({} a b c d) -> js: {a: 'b', c: 'd'} 

  ([] 1 2 3) -> [1,2,3] 

  (([] 10 12 14) 1) -> 12 

I'd never thought of this before. I especially like your examples with the delimiter for switching between syntaxes. CoffeeScript provides one of those (http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/#embedded), and I think you're right that it'd be nice to have.

> I find: ({} a b c d) -> js: {a: 'b', c: 'd'} Better than the single { equivalent.

([ 1 2 3) and ({ a 1 b 2) are kind of an abuse of s-expressions. I think the fact that I want them suggests I should be going all the way to [1 2 3] and {a 1 b 2}, without the parens at all. If you have to delimit them with parens, I agree [] and {} have advantages.

(Not to mention that it would screw up all editors :p)

Haha, yes it would. I finally had to turn paredit off in emacs when I was writing these expressions.

  (= a 'foo)            a = 'foo';
  {a a}                 {a: a}  // => {a: 'foo'}
  {a 'a}                {a: 'a'}
  {'a 'a}               {'a': 'a'}
  '{a a}                '{a: a}'

  {a (- 5 4)}           {a: 5 - 4}
  {a '(- 5 4)}          {a: '5 - 4'}
  '{a (- 5 4)}          '{a: 5 - 4}'
  '{a '(- 5 4)}         '{a: \'5 - 4\'}'

  [1 2 3]               [1, 2, 3]

  (= a 'foo)            a = 'foo';
  [a 2 3]               [a, 2, 3] // => ['foo', 2, 3]
  ['a 2 3]              ['a', 2, 3]
  '[a 2 3]              '[a, 2, 3]'
  '['a 2 3]             '[\'a\', 2, 3]'

  (= a 'foo)            a = 'foo';
  `[,a 2 3]             '[' + a + ', 2, 3]'

  (mac array (x y z)
    `[,x ,y ,z])

  (array 1 2 3)

  ; expands to...
  
  [1 2 3]                [1, 2, 3]

  (mac array elts
    `[,@elts])

  (array 'foo 'bar 
         'baz 'quux)

  ; expands to...
  
  ['foo 'bar             ['foo', 'bar',
   'baz 'quux]            'baz', 'quux']

https://github.com/evanrmurphy/sibilant

But why does it have to depart from arc's syntax? What's wrong with:

  (chain  ($ "body") (addClass "wow") (show "slow"))

The problem arises when you try to make use of Arc's dot ssyntax. Here are a couple jQuery examples using the old ArcScript, which is more ssyntactically faithful to Arc:

  ($.document.`ready (fn ()              $(document).ready(function() {
    ($!a.`click (fn ()                     $("a").click(function() {
      (alert "Hello world!")))))             alert("Hello world!");
                                           });
                                         });


  ($.document.`ready (fn ()              $(document).ready(function() {
    ((($ "#orderedlist")                   $("#orderedlist")
        `addClass) "red")))                  .addClass("red");
                                         });

  $.document => ($ document) => $(document)

> Also, does = inside a def creates a local variable?

This depends on whether you want a DSL that's really close to the metal of JavaScript, or one that makes some nice abstractions for you, like always guaranteeing lexical scope or making all statements valid expressions. I can see the utility of each. Maybe they could both be available as different modes you can toggle:

  ; Metal mode

  (def bar ()                     
    (var= pet "dog")                       
    (return                                 
      (alert                                ; Both compile to this JavaScript        
        (+ "my pet is a " pet)))            
                                            var bar = function() {
  ; Abstraction mode                          var pet = "dog";
                                              return alert("my pet is a " + pet);
  (def bar ()                               };
    (= pet "dog")                 
    (alert                        
      (+ "my pet is a " pet)))

At the very least, (def bar ...) and (def foo ...) won't be corecursive, since foo isn't in bar's scope. That in particular is what the "function bar() { ... }" syntax is for. ^_^ I believe that kind of statement assigns to a variable that's implicitly declared at the top of the current scope, meaning it's visible to itself and all the other functions declared that way, without the need for a "var bar, foo; bar = ...; foo = ...;" idiom.

makes some nice abstractions for you, like always guaranteeing lexical scope

For me, that's one of those "why would I ever want the language to do this for me" things. ^_- Maybe this means I'm a Blub programmer, but I prefer explicitly declaring the new scope's variables rather than explicitly declaring which variables I take from the outer scope.

Declaring only globals is the worst, 'cause it implies not being able to shadow a local with another local of the same name. Ever since 'it, '_, and 'self, I've been accustomed to using the same variable names over and over, even in nesting scopes. Shame on me, but still. :-p

You're right, thanks for the correction. There is an alternative to the "function bar() { ... }" syntax that allows for recursion, though:

  var bar;
  bar = function() {
    ...
  };

> You can probably disregard most of this rant, 'cause it's probably just as annoying either way.

Your rants are always welcome here! ^_^

---

Update: Sorry, rocketnia. Reading your comment more carefully I see you already talked about this:

> I believe that kind of statement assigns to a variable that's implicitly declared at the top of the current scope, meaning it's visible to itself and all the other functions declared that way, without the need for a "var bar, foo; bar = ...; foo = ...;" idiom.

Actually, both of these cases are working fine for me with the ``var bar = function() {...};`` format. This is testing in Chrome 5 on Linux:

  // recursion

  var foo = function(x) { 
    if (x == 0) 
      return "done"; 
    else 
      return foo(x - 1); 
  };

  foo(5)
  // => "done" 

  // corecursion

  var foo = function(x) { 
    if (x == 0) 
      return "done"; 
    else 
      return bar(x - 1); 
  };

  var bar = function(x) { 
    if (x == 0) 
      return "done"; 
    else 
      return foo(x - 1); 
  };

  foo(5)
  // => "done"
  bar(5)
  // => "done"

  var foo = 4;
  
  (function(){
    alert( foo );  // "undefined"
    var foo = 2;
  })();

Hmm... so would you also prefer that return statements never be implicit?

I'd like to design the bottom layer operators of this compiler to have a one-to-one correspondence with JavaScript and zero automagic. This means explicit var declarations, explicit returns and an embrace of the expression/statement dichotomy. Then, we should be able to layer on top all desired forms of automagic using macros so that programmers can opt-in or opt-out as they like.

http://www.paulgraham.com/arclessons.html

Skip to "Implicit local variables conflict with macros."

As for implicit return statements, I don't know what you expect me to be, but I'm for them. ^_^ I think you can always say "return undefined;" in JavaScript to accomplish the same thing as leaving out the return statement, so in a way, leaving the return statement out is just syntactic sugar.

I'm for explicit return statements too, for the purposes of short-circuiting. However, they probably won't play well with macros, for the same reason as pg encountered with implicit local variables: Lexical scope boundaries might pop up in unexpected places and change the meaning of "return;".

> Or is it really naive to think it could work out this way? :P

Well, I do have lots of suggestions. They go pretty deep into the fundamental design too. That said, they sort of lead to not programming in Arc. You'll see what I mean in a second (unless I go scatterbrained on ya again).

I think it would be best to treat this as a combinator library. You can have utilities that build not only JavaScript expressions and statements,* but also other intermediate forms, like lists of statements. I wouldn't be surprised to see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_flow_graph pop up at some point. As the combinator library goes on, it can introduce more convenient construction syntaxes, including full DSLs.

If this is beginning to sound similar to the topic I just posted, "A Language Should Target Moving Platforms"[1], that's because it is. We're talking about generating JavaScript code. It's very closely related to the topic of generating code in general. :-p

I was developing Penknife not too long ago. It's a language much like Arc, but what's important here is that its expressions are compiled and macro-expanded to an intermediate format first--i.e. parsed into an AST--and it's easy to make closures whose ASTs can be inspected. My plan is for the Penknife AST itself to be extensible using user-defined types, and my goal is for non-Penknife ASTs to be made using the same syntax technology used elsewhere in Penknife, right down to using the same compiler.

So yeah, this is my apprach to a JavaScript DSL. ^_^ I don't expect you to go adopt the whole approach, but if you do want to pursue it, or if there's some aspect of it that would fit into your design too, be my guest.

* Fine-grained control is fine by me. :-p So is automagic. I want it all!

I couldn't believe this, but I looked around and yes, it's true, "..the scope container in javascript is a function." (http://mark-story.com/posts/view/picking-up-javascript-closu...)

That seems bad. Don't create a new function in js everytime I do a let in arc. But I don't know if you can avoid doing so.

Yep! Function scope + no tail-call optimization = a formidable challenge. ^_^

> Perhaps one way to do it would be to play a little fast and loose with semantics. Assume let translates to the scope of the containing function.

Interesting approach. I'll play around with this. There might also be weird hacks that could simulate let without costing a whole function on the stack. For example, you might be able to get away with something like this:

  (let x 5         var _temp = true;
    ... )          while (_temp) {
                     _temp = false;
                     var x = 5;
                     ...
                   }

  (let x 5         var _temp = true;
    ... )          for (var x = 5; _temp = false; _temp)                           
                     ...
                   }

  (let x 5         (function() {
    ... )            var x = 5;
                     ...
                   }).call(this);

  var x = 1;
  {
      var x = 2;
      var y = "but why!?";
      alert( x );           // 2
  }
  alert( x );               // 2
  alert( y );               // but why!?
  
  var x = 1;
  do
  {
      var x = 2;
      var y = "but why!?";
      alert( x );           // 2
  }
  while( false );
  alert( x );               // 2
  alert( y );               // but why!?

For a high-level (and non-idiomatic) approach, it's possible to implement trampolining using exceptions. I've done it in about a page of JavaScript (right next to my Fermat's Last Theorem proof, of course of course :-p ), and I think the API can be as simple as this:

  - Use bounce( foo, foo.bar, 1, 2 ,3 ) instead of
      foo.bar( 1, 2, 3 ) in tail positions. This throws an
      exception containing information about the next call
      to make.
  - To begin a trampolining loop, call the function with
      trampoline( foo, foo.bar, 1, 2, 3 ). This should be
      done when calling functions at the top level and when
      calling functions from within functions that are to be
      exposed to other JavaScript utilities and DOM event
      handlers (which won't call trampoline themselves).

I think this could work pretty nicely, actually:

  (let x 5         var _x;
    ... )          _x = 5;
                   ...

  (= x 6)            var x, _x;
  (let x 5           x = 6;
    (alert x))       
  (alert x)          _x = 5;
                     alert(_x); // => 5

                     alert(x); // => 6

  (let x 5           var _x, __x;
    (alert x))         
  (let x 6           _x = 5;
    (alert x))       alert(_x); // => 5

                     __x = 6;
                     alert(__x); // => 6

The underscore prefix system would be nice because it's pretty readable, but it's not necessary. In the worst case, we can use gensyms. I thought using underscores for internal variables might work because CoffeeScript does it [1], but maybe it won't. So you raise a good point. :)

> Also, will the name "let!" conflict with ssyntax?

Yes. I'm starting from scratch with the ssyntax. `!` is a regular character now. It can be used in names like `let!`, and when by itself in functional position it compiles to the JavaScript negation operator:

  (! x)   =>   !x

---

[1] http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/#comprehensions

  ({ a 1  b 2  c 3)