Artanis: GNU Gets Into Web Application Frameworks, Written In Guile Scheme

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Artanis: GNU Gets Into Web Application Frameworks, Written In Guile Scheme

Artanis 0.2 has been released, a newer GNU project that's a web application framework written in Guile Scheme...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GNU-Artanis-0.2

[Michael_S]

I was going to comment on the absurdity of a GNU project named after a fictional character from a proprietary video game (Starcraft 2).

But I'm guessing that the name was chosen as the reverse of Sinatra, the Ruby web framework.

[Brane215]

Arrgh. Guile, Who uses that crap ?

[Michael_S]

What's wrong with Guile? It's fine as far as Scheme goes, has a nice and decently documented C FFI. Guix is written in it.

[starshipeleven]

Arrgh. Guile, Who uses that crap ?

Guix distro (another GNU product) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guix_System_Distribution
plus a bunch of random GNU software.

It's their own dog food. They eat it.

[necrophcodr]

What's wrong with Guile? It's fine as far as Scheme goes, has a nice and decently documented C FFI. Guix is written in it.

Not to mention that Guix, the "package manager", not only is written in it, but the configurations are written in it too, allowing you full access to a huge programming language for defining very exact and/or dynamic configurations for virtual machines, operating systems, or just locally installed applications. Or all of these.

[CrystalGamma]

I was going to comment on the absurdity of a GNU project named after a fictional character from a proprietary video game (Starcraft 2).

But I'm guessing that the name was chosen as the reverse of Sinatra, the Ruby web framework.

It didn't even occur to me that they might be referencing Sinatra …
But didn't Artanis appear in the original StarCraft already? (not that it makes a difference)

[bug77]

Raise your hand if you think that code is readable. You get to vote a second time if you can understand what it does (without reading the article).

[raster]

Raise your hand if you think that code is readable. You get to vote a second time if you can understand what it does (without reading the article).

Hand raised... and I don't do lisp/scheme.. i dislike the syntax pretty strongly... but it is readable and...
Hand raised #2 - it makes sense as to what it does... get is a function that defines some path for the get (staring with /) and then a callback (the lambda) to call when that specific get for that specific path has been requested... and the callback is just an inline function that returns "hello world" and thus that is put in the get response body... at the end it's "run the mainloop" with specific options to listen to a specific port number as arguments... at the top is a "#include" - ie import this module so it can be used... not hard to figure out... and i dont know lisp/scheme.

[Michael_S]

I got my software development start with a tiny bit of Basic, then Pascal, C, C++, Java, etc... so when I first started toying with Lisp dialects almost ten years ago the syntax drove me bonkers. But after a while it sank in.

I think Common Lisp has too much of a bizarre legacy to ever gain serious traction. But I really think Scheme, Racket, or Clojure could become wildly popular. They're all much simpler than Common Lisp but just as flexible.