I agree with renaming Parenscript's package from :js to :parenscript or :ps. Indeed, just :parenscript would be fine. A library and its package should usually have the same name. However, some of the function and macro names that Parenscript now complains are deprecated, I actually prefer to their replacements.

 

For example, the js macro is accurately named. I prefer this:

 

   (js (setf x 1))

 

to this:

 

  (ps (setf x 1))

 

...because "js" reminds me that I'm generating Javascript (not Parenscript). To me it's closer to the meaning. What I especially don't like, though, is this:

 

  (script (setf x 1))

 

... because there are at least two other scripting languages embedded in my Lisp code, and the term "script" could apply to any of them. I need to know at all times which kind of script I'm working with. In this case it's Javascript.

 

Similarly, I much prefer "defjsmacro" to "defscriptmacro". Much clearer and more expressive.

 

There's sort of a philosophical point here. I don't see Parenscript as a separate language. I see it as an interface to Javascript. I don't want an extra mental layer getting in the way, and I certainly don't want to forget that I'm writing Javascript. (I love using macros to build up abstractions in Parenscript - in fact that's a big reason I use PS - but to me that's a separate issue.)

 

Bottom line, I have a moderate preference for "js" names instead of "ps" ones and a strong objection to the generic term "script". What do others think?

 

Daniel