Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- From: Charles Coldwell <coldwell@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:36:33 GMT
Gary Scott <garylscott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Ford says ThoughtWorks colleague Ola Bini envisions a future stack of
basic programming tools consisting of a "stable language" at the
bottom level, with dynamic languages built on top of that, and DSLs
added at the top layer.
That sounds a lot like Lisp macros ("Lisp is a programmable programming
language" -- John Foderaro, CACM, September 1991).
http://www.paulgraham.com/chameleon.html
The idea is that you design an application-specific language using Lisp
macros, and then run that. It's not a new idea.
Chip
--
Charles M. "Chip" Coldwell
"Turn on, log in, tune out"
GPG Key ID: 852E052F
GPG Key Fingerprint: 77E5 2B51 4907 F08A 7E92 DE80 AFA9 9A8F 852E 052F
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- From: Simulate
- Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- From: Arjen Markus
- Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- From: Simulate
- Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- From: Gary Scott
- F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- Prev by Date: Re: Rounding off double precision
- Next by Date: Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- Previous by thread: Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- Next by thread: Re: F2003 standard: Can Class(*) be used in generic proogramming?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|