Sadly, his response only makes things worse. He writes
Some Scheme systems have theoretically advanced macro systems but I
believe the Common Lisp macro system is more suitable for writing
useful macros.
Eh? How about a huge chunk of the cool things in Racket, from the
class system to Typed Racket to Lazy Racket to FrTime?
He does not understand that a macro system that closes over bindings
from other modules is a *fundamentally different thing* than a mere
macro system. It is hard to overstate this matter; it is foundational
to what makes Racket a different language than Lisp or Scheme.
In fact, this merely demonstrates that where macros are concerned,
he's a Blub programmer. (He may indeed be in the top-10%ile of
Blubberers.)
I'm aware that he says
If you disagree and have examples to back up your opinions, I'd love
to hear from you.
but perhaps if he were truly interested in learning, *he* would
contact the authors of those "theoretically advanced systems" and ask
them to educate him, not put the burden on them.
Shriram
PS: This message is public, so anyone who wants to is welcome to
forward it to him or anyone else, w/out asking me for permission.
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
