Certainly macros can be dangerous if used recklessly or clumsily, but > isn't trusting the programmer and giving him powerful tools what Lisp > is all about? No other language provides the same power of expression. > A tour through the Clojure code demonstrates just how powerful this > idea is and how easy it makes it for the language implementors to > implement features in a few lines of code that are major bullet-point > features in other languages. > > In my opinion it is much better to empower developers and build a culture of good taste and self-discipline, than to limit the language in an attempt to enforce particular styles. Python is the latter and Lisp is the former. And Python code is often convoluted because of programmers working around the limitations imposed by the language. And don't get me started on lines of code that begin at column 80 etc. ;)
I would argue in favor of user-defined reader macros for these same reasons, they are rarely needed but why not maximize the power of Clojure? I think the last word on this from Rich Hickey was "many things that would otherwise have forced people to reader macros may end up in Clojure, where everyone can benefit from a common approach". To me this is Rich being like Guido von Rossum, but maybe there are other good reasons behind the decision that he has either not articulated or I just am not aware of/haven't read. Rob -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
