I've got to say, this is the first time I've genuinely had the "read the source, Luke" feeling. Maybe it's a sign of the documentation having a few holes, but the source code is so clean and readable that I'm ending up understanding how it works from the code more than the docs. Cf. https://blog.codinghorror.com/learn-to-read-the-source-luke/
(And that's even true comparing it to dwm/other Suckless projects, which have very clean code)
So the fact that the stumpwm code is easier for me to read (compared even to the clean dwm code) says something about … something. The expressiveness of the languages, I guess?
@codesections Lisp is one of the best languages ever developed. I still haven't found one to beat it – Rust might be that, but I somehow doubt it.
@codesections They're both languages that allow one to write blazingly fast high-level close-to-the-metal readable code.
> [Rust and Lisp are] both languages that allow one to write blazingly fast high-level close-to-the-metal readable code.
Can you say more about that re: lisp? I know very little about #lisp, but my casual impression was that it was neither blazingly fast nor close-to-the-metal. #Clojure is probably the most common lisp, right? And it pulls in the whole JVM. Is #SBCL significantly different in terms of being close to the metal? I'm asking from a position of curious ignorance
@codesections I've never heard of SBCL (though it seems really cool!) and Clojure is something that people talk about. I've used neither. Scheme's the one I've heard of, and used, and seen wherever I've seen Lisp.
Lisp can even be compiled to C, as opposed to directly to machine code.
Not much language in the way
Fosstodon is a Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.