I've been following Hy for a while and it's sad that macros are still part of on-going discussions with no definite plan. It's one of the reason I prefer Scheme-inspired Lisps to Common Lisp. Hy just looks Lispy but it's no where near Lisp without all the macro system.
Hy has macros, and they work fairly well. I'm using plenty of macros in Adderall, would not be possible without them. There are a few rough edges with Hy macros, mostly due to the underlying Python, but I at least, can live with that, and they don't hinder my work.
My bad, you're right. I didn't know the documentation section for macro was added recently. It looks pretty Common Lispy. Reader macro looks nice, still at its beginning stage though.
There is an older clojurepy that exists. The author mentioned abandoning it and it needing to target the python AST (like Hy) instead of .pyc to be more portable/less brittle. If you're interested in this, drop me a line (emidln@gmail.com) as I've been toying with using modern clojurescript as a starting point rather than the old codebase.
Hey dude, language author here - yeah, a (lambda) will become a Python lambda if it's a single expression, otherwise it'll turn into an anonymous function (with a name like `_hy_anon_fn_00011`) and replace the lambda with a ref to the function.
I just want to say how much I enjoy seeing hy popping up now. I have come to really like ClojureScript for my webdev stuff, Scheme from SICP and Python, well, has also been on my toolstack for long
Sometimes Hy seems a little undecided on language issues as simple as (defn vs defun) usage of ! for mutating objects or alphabetic chars, etc. I value freedom of choice, but are there any plans to unify this in the direction of "there is one way to do it"?
