Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:08:46 +0100
Peter Seibel wrote:
>>> There's certainly no concept of "macroexpansion time" and "run time"
>>> like there is in CL,
>>
>> So you cannot use macros to generate code to generate macros to
>> generate code in Lisp?
>
> How on earth did you get from what Brian said to that.
I assume he meant Lisp is evaluated like this:
1. Macros are applied.
2. Resulting macro-free code is evaluated.
In which case (2) cannot generate more macros.
I guess the Mathematica equivalent is that there is only macroexpansion-time
and no run-time. Presumably you can remove the "run-time" from Lisp and
implement execution as a macro that interprets code?
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Joe Marshall
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Ulrich Hobelmann
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Michael Sullivan
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- References:
- Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Ulrich Hobelmann
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Peter Seibel
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Brian Downing
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Peter Seibel
- Very poor Lisp performance
- Prev by Date: CL and ML patterns (Re: Ray tracer in Stalin)
- Next by Date: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Previous by thread: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Next by thread: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|