On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> 10 minutes ago, Markku Rontu wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > > > No, it's broken in pretty much all cases. Give me a single > > > symbolic macro and I'll show you how it's broken. (And point out > > > how CL bypasses the problem...) > > > > > I think it's a bit disingenuous to say they are broken. People made > > successful systems using their simple but broken tools, yes? People > > are making successful systems in crippled languages such as Java and > > CL. And some people even like it :-) Sure they can only build a > > limited thing with the broken tool, but if you stay within its > > limits it doesn't matter, does it? Nobody is trying to implement > > Typed Clojure on top of the macro system, I hope :-) > > Sure, if you take the TM-equivalent path then nothing is broken, of > course... (That path tends to melt away all of PL into a weak *puff* > of irrelevance...) > > I mean exactly this sense of disingenuousness when you use the word broken for something that people use successfully despite its warts. That it is a weak *puff* of irrelevance of a word :-) Lead from the front, show superior tools by showing superior results! > > > But as syntactic sugar for a DSL, where's the big problem that makes > > it entirely broken? > > Actually, unhygienic macros break even more glaringly for many DSLs. > Which I guess is why they tend to be recommended as only syntactic sugar on top of a plain old functional library? -Markku > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! >
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
