On Sep 9, 5:06 pm, alux <alu...@googlemail.com> wrote: > But, @Luc > "pushing the advantage of Lisp > macros to the forefront is not obvious if the audience cannot compare > with another (good/simple) implementation they understand well." > > Thats why I want to use a nifty metaphor ;-)
Even your dumbest Java developer knows that javac (or ant, or maven, or Eclipse, or *something*) converts their source to JVM byte code. Finding a familiar example is not hard. Compilers might not be a perfect example perhaps because maybe people think of compilers as big, complicated, high magic. But, clearly, they don't have to be. Any rewriting system should be a suitable analogy. As I said before, the macro concept should be as plain as the nose on your face. As other people have said, the cool part is that lisp macros are written in lisp and integrate with the compiler/interpreter in a cool way. That can only be internalized (grokked) by writing your own macros and reading good examples. How do you force someone to do that? You make it part of some other goal they are trying to achieve. Right? Why did you study semi- conductor physics? Because you had to before they'd let you do transistors, before they'd let you do logic gates, before they'd let you do microprocessors, before they'd let you do assembly, before they'd let you do C, before they'd let you do algorithms, before they'd let you do AI. Which is all you ever *really* wanted to do in the first place! Adam -- 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
