> And how is the C source constructed in this way? Well, though what is
> compiled is definitely C, what is written is essentially APL.
> Here's an example of J's source style:
> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Incunabulum (though this wasn't
> written by Roger). I
> wonder how a Lisper reacts to such heavy use of macros?
>
> -Dan
>
>
Firstly on the macros, I don't think that there are grounds for
comparing C macros with Lisp Macros as they only share the name. In Lisp
I can fully control the evaluation of the arguments, which allows me to
write code which generates code
(defmacro and
([x & next]
`(let [and# ~x]
(if and# (and ~...@next) and#))))
If you got your hands on an initial release of a C compiler which didn't
include 'and' or 'if' or similar, you'd be stuck waiting for the next
release. In Lisp however, we can freely extend the language because we
decide what gets evaluated and when.
In regards to your general explanation of why I can trust J, I accept
it. Building a small core in C then writing the base lib in J is a smart
decision. That has made Emacs a huge success despite being written in
this vile language. But whatever shape, size or form, whoever has
written it and how hard they tried, C to me will always be the clearest
example of what not to do with a computer.
--
BEST IN CLASS
*Lau B. Jensen*
Indehaver
*T:* (+45) 427 00 422
*E:* [email protected]
*H:* http://www.bestinclass.dk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
