Ah I see. Yes, motivation is hard. I don't have any good tips for that. I remember when I was trying to learn Lisp. Even though I desperately *wanted* to like Lisp, it still took a few tries before I started to appreciate it. Good luck! -Patrick
On Sep 8, 11:07 am, alux <alu...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > yes, I think thats the right way to teach this stuff. My problem > arises earlier - I still have to motivate my collegues, to get them > interested, and, maybe, teach them later ;-) > > Regards, alux > > On 8 Sep., 16:28, CuppoJava <patrickli_2...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I found the easiest way to introduce macros is just to introduce them > > as small syntactic sugaring. For example, getting rid of the explicit > > (fn [] ...) for macros like (with-open file ...). > > Once people get accustomed to this, they naturally extend it to more > > and more complicated usages. > > -Patrick > > > On Sep 8, 6:12 am, alux <alu...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello Joop, > > > > thanks for the link. So it seems not to be completely misled ;-) > > > > Greetings, alux > > > > On 8 Sep., 11:59, Joop Kiefte <iko...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Actually, this metaphor has been used before. > > > > Checkhttp://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.htmlforanotherversion of > > > > your story ;). > > > > > 2010/9/8 alux <alu...@googlemail.com>: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I still try to read my way through Paul Grahams "On Lisp", and always > > > > > think how to motivate this stuff to my fellow Java people. How do I > > > > > describe what it is all about in this "Code is Data", and "Macros let > > > > > you grow your own language towards the problem" stuff? > > > > > [Why? Well, maybe I read to much of Paul Grahams texts. So my current > > > > > working hypothesis is that this is the one big strength of Lisp that > > > > > other languages still dont have - so if I want to motivate people to > > > > > learn a Lisp, I have to at least point to it.] > > > > > > Short answer: Difficult. ;-) > > > > > > Especially if I find formulations like > > > > > "You can have the language which suits your program, even if it ends > > > > > up looking quite different from Lisp." > > > > > > Longer Answer: > > > > > > What puzzles me most about this quoted formulation is the words > > > > > "different from Lisp", as I know: All my Java collegues see > > > > > Lisp=Parentheses. So, to them, PGs formulation is even misleading. To > > > > > them it doesn't look quite different at the end. > > > > > > Thus I try to come up with a metaphor, and I want to discuss it here, > > > > > in the hope I don't tell them rubbish at the end. > > > > > > I want to liken XML to Lisp data. Then, with XSLT, some XML structures > > > > > are actually programs. Programs that work on XML data. The Lisp > > > > > parentheses are just like the basic XML syntax - elements, tags, > > > > > attributes. Obviousely Lisp has a much simpler syntax, but its trees > > > > > anyway. So XSLT can be likened to Lisp macros then. > > > > > > And the use of it? Well, I currently want to talk to some people who > > > > > use Maven a lot. So the example I came up with is: > > > > > Think about when you had Ant, some years ago. Ant is just a > > > > > programming language for Java builds. > > > > > After a while you recognise that it'd be better to have something that > > > > > describes the project declaratively, with opinionated defaults. Well, > > > > > after some discussions you define something called pom.xml, that does > > > > > this (congratulation, we just invented Maven). Immediately you see > > > > > that all these Ant build scripts mentioned above could be generated > > > > > from this Maven pom.xml. So you might write XSLT to do so (this of > > > > > course deviates from historical truth). Some step later, you don't > > > > > generate them anymore as files; the only needed file is the pom.xml, > > > > > and the transformations of course. > > > > > > So XML and XSLT are data and code, and they can do something that is > > > > > a) similar to what Lisp macros do, and > > > > > b) this is something my collegues understand. > > > > > > Hopefully. > > > > > > So, coming back to Paul Grahams quote, what the beginners see is: It > > > > > was XML and stays XML. The things "looking quite different" are, in > > > > > this metaphor, the XML schema of the Maven pom.xml versus the XML > > > > > scheme of the Ant files. > > > > > > I hope that they will understand the power; and agree they will never > > > > > try and do this in XSLT. The Lisp syntax is just simple enough to be > > > > > usable for such tasks. > > > > > > So, now you probably understand why I ask this question here, even if > > > > > it is a general Lisp question. This may be the only group where people > > > > > understand Lisp and Macros, XML/XSLT, and Ant, and Maven ;-) > > > > > > Now the question: > > > > > Do you see any problems with this metaphor, is it misleading > > > > > somewhere? > > > > > > Thank you, alux > > > > > > -- > > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > > > > Linux-user #496644 (http://counter.li.org) - first touch of linux in > > > > 2004 > > > > > Demandoj en aŭ pri Esperanto? Questions about Esperanto? Vragen over > > > > Esperanto? Perguntas sobre o Esperanto? -http://demandoj.tk -- 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
