Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>
>> I believe Dreamweaver-esque. I see myself writing articles and
>> eventually doing snazzy eye candy layouts. I do not see myself
>> engaging in elaborate flow control or anything ter
=?iso-8859-15?Q?Pierre-Fr=E9d=E9ric_Caillaud?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
Ideally, I would like an open source website + html design tool
implemented in Python
>>>
>>> didn't you just say that ideally, you wanted a tool written in lisp
>>> or scheme?
>>
>> I
Ron_Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>>
>>http://www.igda.org/seattle/
>>http://www.cyphondesign.com/
>>http://www.alphageeksinc.com/
>>http://www.gamasutra.com
>
> These top three where done with text editors. If you view the source,
> you will notice the formatting has good consistent indentin
"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>> Ideally, I would like an open source website + html design tool
>> implemented in Python
>
> didn't you just say that ideally, you wanted a tool
As is easily noticed, my website sucks. Enough people keep ragging
on me about it, that maybe I'll up and do something about it. However,
I currently have FrontPage 2000 and I hate it. Ideally, I would like an
open source website + html design tool implemented in Python, so
that possibly someday
Carl Shapiro wrote:
> "Brandon J. Van Every" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
>
>> Last I looked, 2 years ago?, there were no compiled, open source
>> lisps that ran on Windows. Has this changed?
>
> I have a virtually completed port of CMUCL to Win32.
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>
> All this information has been available in FAQs and
> on many web pages since forever.
When I Google for "comp.lang.lisp FAQ," I get a document that was last
updated in 1997. Consequently I do not pay attention to it. I do peruse
newsgroup archives, and I did make
James Graves wrote:
>
> If you want to do application development, Common Lisp is where it's
> at, no doubt about it. There are more and better libraries for CL
> these days, and they are easier to install and manage with tools like
> ASDF. Multiple open-source implementations, covering the most p
James Graves wrote:
>
> So with Python 3000, you're going to end up with a language just as
> big as CL, but without the most fundamental building blocks. Ah
> well, to each his own.
Preventing people from building things from scratch is probably an
industrial advantage. Look how fragmented the
Philip Smith wrote:
>
> Conventions on type conversion are just one example. Without using
> strict coding conventions the richness of the language could, and
> often did, result in ambiguity. In my experience too C++ has
> defeated its own object (eg portability) - I've given up in many
> cases
10 matches
Mail list logo
