> On Oct 16, 2017, at 2:17 PM, George Neuner <gneun...@comcast.net> wrote:
You speak of personal failing, and I think that’s incorrect.
We are missing a good introduction to syntax and friends.
But having said that, I need to contradict this one:
> Lisp's macros are ... I won't say easier to use correctly, because
> they aren't ... but IMO they are easier to understand and think about
> because the input is just a tree of normal Lisp objects that can be
> manipulated using normal Lisp functions. No dichotemy of "this is
> syntax" vs "that is data", and no bridges to cross between two
> different representations.
Lisp macros are easier than Racket’s in the same way that it
was so much easier to write procedures in ASM than in Pascal.
It was so much easier to manipulate bit patterns directly,
why bother calling some Integer and others Chars.
— Matthias
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
