>>8592> Any of those data structures would take less than an hour to implement reasonably,Having done so many times, I disagree. Otherwise:
> although you really should use someone else's implementation and save yourself the headache.Wouldn't be true. I'm not saying that it's important to pick one of these now, I'm saying we haven't even done that despite how trivial it is to do so, as you point out.
> If you were an experienced langdev you'd be more concerned with language design at this point.Nope. Lisp allows rapid incremental development. Are you saying such is not a good approach? At this point I'd be worried that 3/4th of a year has gone by and despite everyone telling me everything is so trivial to implement we don't have target implementation platform or a single feature written yet, not even a basic tokenizer.
Every Lisp has many common elements which make it recognizable as a Lisp. That we don't have a single one of those operational is concerning.
> Worrying about implementation details too early, especially for a high level language like a Lisp, is a waste of time.I disagree, in that I don't think it's too early to begin work immediately. It's not like we're inventing a whole new language paradigm that need be planned out in advance of implementation.
Any sort of result would be nice, since the common opinion seems to be that everything about implementing Lisp is so easy/simple. So, where's the proof?
> Parsing and lexing are very easy and well studied tasks anyway, The proof is in the pudding. If it's so easy, then where is our lexer? We should have one for every target implementation platform by now... considering the belief that interfacing most features into an interpretor takes "less than an hour to implement".