logoalt Hacker News

rafterydjtoday at 2:38 AM2 repliesview on HN

I don't understand this, if I'm honest. WebAssembly is the compilation target. It's a Scheme compiler for wasm, right? Why is it pretending to be a way to rewrite websites? Wouldn't that be a job for literally any possible language compiled to WebAssembly?

I read the "Why Scheme?" page and it looked entirely AI generated, inasmuch as the reasoning presented confused me, because it didn't make sense. It references homoiconicity as pretty much the only reason to do this, mentions Lisp once or twice, and then just sort of talks about AI not understanding HTML because it doesn't understand compiling.

But putting it under the prompt of "must pass compiler" makes an AI exactly as capable at the task of making websites as it is capable at the task of making correct programs in any language - which is to say that it can't be guaranteed. Which in turn puts into the question the whole purpose of this project, and particularly, why Scheme chosen at all? Why not Lisp? Why not C? Or Erlang? Or Clojure?


Replies

jrapdx3today at 5:36 AM

Scheme language is very well-suited for producing websites, I've been doing that for several months with decent results. But unless I missed information, I think you're right that has nothing to do with WebAssembly. However I know Scheme->wasm compilers exist if unsure of their status.

Of course many languages can be used to create or serve websites. If language doesn't matter, then why not Scheme? It's at least as capable as the languages mentioned. OTOH much less is written about Scheme vs. more "mainstream" languages. Maybe that does make a difference.

guenchitoday at 2:59 AM

the syntax-case marco