Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Douglas Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> And likewise, good macro programming can solve some problems that no >> amount of linting could ever solve. > I think Lisp is more needful of macros than other languages, because > its underlying primitives are too, well, primitive. You have to write > all the abstractions yourself. Well, not really beause you typically use Common Lisp with CLOS and a class library. If you ask me, the more things that can (elegantly) be moved out of the core language and into a standard library, the better. > Python has built-in abstractions for a few container types like > lists and dicts, and now a new and more general one (iterators), so > it's the next level up. Common Lisp has had all these things for ages. > And a bunch of stuff that Python could use macros for, are easily > done in Haskell using delayed evaluation and monads. And Haskell is > starting to grow its own macro system (templates) but that's > probably a sign that an even higher level language (maybe with > dependent types or something) would make the templates unnecessary. Alas, I can't comment too much on Haskell, as, although I am familiar with it to some extent, I am far from proficient in it. Don't worry -- it's on my to-do list. I think that first I'd like to take Gerry Sussman's new graduate class, first, though, and I'll find out how it can all be done in Scheme. |>oug -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
