On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu> wrote: > Sadly, his response only makes things worse. He writes > > Some Scheme systems have theoretically advanced macro systems but I > believe the Common Lisp macro system is more suitable for writing > useful macros. > > Eh? How about a huge chunk of the cool things in Racket, from the > class system to Typed Racket to Lazy Racket to FrTime?
His response makes perfect sense. We don't have a a "theoretically advanced macro system", we have a "practically advanced macro system". Also, that is a part of Racket, not part of our support for Scheme. All it says is that he needs to learn about Racket. > He does not understand that a macro system that closes over bindings > from other modules is a *fundamentally different thing* than a mere > macro system. It is hard to overstate this matter; it is foundational > to what makes Racket a different language than Lisp or Scheme. > > In fact, this merely demonstrates that where macros are concerned, > he's a Blub programmer. (He may indeed be in the top-10%ile of > Blubberers.) > > I'm aware that he says > > If you disagree and have examples to back up your opinions, I'd love > to hear from you. > > but perhaps if he were truly interested in learning, *he* would > contact the authors of those "theoretically advanced systems" and ask > them to educate him, not put the burden on them. It seems like little work to send him a link to Racket. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
