Hello Meikel, I agree with all the points you suggest to mention, and I do so. Nevertheless I will get (and got, so this is not hypothetic) the question: "But why do they use this intolerable strange syntax? Why cant this be in a usual (C-like) syntax?"
And here (thats my state of understanding) is the only reason: We directly write the abstract syntax tree, because this is the way we can introduce new syntax ourself. Thats why I think to need this metaphor. Thank you, and kind regards, alux On 8 Sep., 17:19, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On 8 Sep., 17:07, alux <alu...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > 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 ;-) > > Then I wouldn't stress macros at all. Just mention them later on - > "Oh! And btw: this is a macro thingy." Clojure's concurrency features, > the functional style, the abstractions, the consistency, rapid REPL > development cycle - all this is what makes Clojure Clojure. Macros are > also part of that, but a small and - IMHO - an overrated one. They > have their place - and I don't want to miss them - but they are not > one of the main selling point for me. > > Sincerely > Meikel -- 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
