On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:11:53 -0400, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> On Oct 16, 2017, at 2:17 PM, George Neuner <gneun...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Lisp's macros are ... I won't say easier to use correctly, because >> they aren't ... but IMO they are easier to understand and think about >> because the input is just a tree of normal Lisp objects that can be >> manipulated using normal Lisp functions. No dichotemy of "this is >> syntax" vs "that is data", and no bridges to cross between two >> different representations. > > >Lisp macros are easier than Racket’s in the same way that it >was so much easier to write procedures in ASM than in Pascal. >It was so much easier to manipulate bit patterns directly, >why bother calling some Integer and others Chars. I think maybe you overlooked where I said "use correctly". Non-hygienic macros are much easier to write ... but they are also much easier to f_ up and do something unexpected when used. In any case, it was not my intent to start a religious war here. Scheme's macros work as they do for a reason [and yes! I do know the reason]. I don't necessarily have to like it though, nor do I have to say that I do. I have read "Fear of Macros". Long ago in fact. I don't fear macros at all ... I'm a [getting old] compiler geek and what I fear is to lack understanding of what's going on under the hood. Lisp is pretty transparent about it's IR internals ... Scheme not so much. George -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
