Lisp? Then I would use Lisp...
> The goal is to define a comprehensive, trivially-parsable and sugar-free syntax.
Ruby has syntax sugar, no need to remove the funny parts.
Lisp has completely different runtime semantics. Even the lexical scope in Ruby is extremely peculiar. One of the hard parts of writing this document was to remove the intuitive influence of Lisp because it just doesn't make sense for Ruby.
This is just an intermediate representation, it's not meant to be used directly (even though you can do that, of course).
Smalltalker-80•3h ago
pansa2•2h ago
OTOH Ruby doesn't need a postcard, it needs a full poster.