2009/11/13 Moritz Wilhelmy <c...@wzff.de>: > In lisp, the macros are part of the language and don't hide anything. > The syntax itself is lisp, with all it's parentheses.
I'm only going by what Dimitry Maluka was suggesting in his e-mail. I don't see the point of writing complex macros to subdue a language to my taste, when I could just as easily use another language. 2009/11/13 Dmitry Maluka <dmitrymal...@gmail.com>: > Please don't say a language is poorly designed if you don't know that > language. Please don't fallaciously assume I don't know anything just because I'm criticizing a Language you're fanatical about. > 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. I agree, no language can directly accommodate all needs, but if I find my self wanting to write ugly macros to do something, I find a better way of achieving what I need. C is far from perfect, but I find it nice enough to do the majority of things painlessly. > Yes. Bad books on programming treat Lisp as a "functional programming > language with list as the only data structure" but it isn't. Nobody said lists were Lisp's only data structure, but an inherent feature of Lisp is that it treats things like a list: "The name LISP derives from "LISt Processing". Linked lists are one of Lisp languages' major data structures, and Lisp source code is itself made up of lists. As a result, Lisp programs can manipulate source code as a data structure, giving rise to the macro systems that allow programmers to create new syntax or even new domain-specific programming languages embedded in Lisp." So you're telling me "bad books" describe Lisp as it was designed? Granted that's taken from the Wikipedia article, but I can't find any article that disputes that definition. > Its primary concept is the transparency of the program's abstract > syntax tree (due to the syntax simplicity). Tell me, how is that beneficial?
