Re: The power difference between a macro and a function

Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
>> To answer the question, you really need to ask someone well versed in
>> both types of language.
>
> You should read the OP's question again. You don't need to refer to
> other languages to explain what kind of expressive power macros provide.

He asked: "Were there no reasonable alternatives?".

Many people consider using other languages, that already support the syntax
you want, to be a "reasonable alternative" to retrofitting an ad-hoc syntax
onto Lisp yourself.

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: references about the beauty of functional programming ?
    ... Jon Harrop wrote: ... such languages are therefore easier to maintain. ... For non-trivial tasks, OCaml is usually much faster than C++. ...
    (comp.lang.functional)
  • Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
    ... Jon Harrop wrote: ... some languages process sleep cycles faster than others, ... My original point was that Lisp makes high-level programming slow. ... modern functional languages are so much more effective than ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Fortran and simple tree recursion
    ... > Jon Harrop wrote: ... tail calls are simply determined by whether or not the result ... In functional languages, recursion is so ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Whats so great about lisp?
    ... Pascal Costanza wrote: ... > Jon Harrop wrote: ... >> Your claim is so general that it covers languages we've never ... I wouldn't mind that if it were based upon a proof but it is ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Troll-o-Matic
    ... I think Jon Harrop gets more flak that he deserves. ... criticism that was levied against his benchmarks was justified, ... in all these languages for comparison would be practical in most situations). ... It is easy to lie with statistics, but it's a lot easier to lie without them. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)