Chad Scherrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don Stewart <dons <at> galois.com> writes: > [Stuff where I totally agree] > > Now, I don't know much about lisp, but aren't code transformations > like this the whole point of macros? What makes is difficult to do > the same thing in this context? > Proof of correctness, or even a graspable notion of correctness for the whole semantics of the language. If you consider that hygienic macros (that is, macros that don't make a mess of every concept you have of "namespace") were introduced quite late, you might get a grasp on how bravely and hackish they were designed.
> What about object-oriented languages? The problem with step 1 in the > argument is that it's already cast in a functional-programming > framework. Is there a way to recast it so OOP could play? > Yes, I suppose so, but you'll be left with Haskell with an OOP Syntax, and a style of OOP that uses Objects mainly as closures, which isn't a thing OOP coders regularly, or at all, do, to get the granularity of replacements that is necessary to consider them useful in the first run. Some years or decades ahead, perhaps Haskell will not be able to avoid being successful anymore, and that is the time where you'll see things that look like Java, feel like Java, work like Java, but still use a Haskell RTS. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying, hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
