Pascal Bourguignon wrote: > Kirk Sluder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> "mystilleef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>>1). More and better mature standard libraries (Languages don't matter, >>>libraries do). >> >>.... >> >>>On Lisp Macros: >>> >>>I think they are overrated, and in general cause more harm than good. >>>It's the reason I find Lisp-like programs difficult to grok, maintain >>>and extend. Cos every smart ass wants to needlessly write his own mini >>>language to the point of absolute obfuscation. Naturally, I'm supposed >>>to be awed by his mischievous cleverness. >> >>I've not seen a convincing explanation as to why imported macros >>from some library are so much more evil than imported functions. In >>both cases one might have to dig into documentation and/or comments >>to understand exactly what that imported snippit is doing. > > > And the difference with a library function is?
Uh, that was his point. And if you all dig back thru this thread you will find me quoting GvR on the difference, which is (paraphrasing) "with macros you do not even know where the function calls are". I think he is talking about a loop-like erection of a new language. ken -- Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm "Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd "I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific." -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
