On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 03:47:46AM +0000, Aled Gest wrote: > I totally agree that the C pre-processor sucks. It's ill thought out > and needs replacing.
Any proposals? > However, going back to what you were saying about > you being able to subdue Lisp's syntax with macros, any language that > requires macros to hide its syntax is poorly designed. Please don't say a language is poorly designed if you don't know that language. > Macros are there to aid programming. They are so in Lisp. > You shouldn't need to create a new language > out of macros to get the job done, otherwise you might as well just > use another language in the first place. The problem is that no language can anticipate any your need. And then you are forced to go and write ugly C macros or something similar. > Are you denying that Lisp's primary concept is that it treats > everything as a list? Yes. Bad books on programming treat Lisp as a "functional programming language with list as the only data structure" but it isn't. Its primary concept is the transparency of the program's abstract syntax tree (due to the syntax simplicity).
