Re: eval use ?
- From: "josephoswaldgg@xxxxxxxxxxx" <josephoswald@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Feb 2006 08:40:46 -0800
I don't know why I bother replying, but here goes
Majorinc wrote:
McCarthy seems to be on my side:
"It seems to me that LISP will probably be superseded for many
purposes by a language that does to LISP what LISP does to
machine language. Namely it will be a higher level language
than LISP that, like LISP and machine language, can refer to
its own programs."
Hmm. Don't see "programmer use of EVAL" in his statement.
How do you think "code=data" can be possible without EVAL?
Macros fall short here, because code=data means that code can
be processed during runtime, just like data is usually
processed during runtime.
Do you think closures are not code? That closures are not data?
Lisp can exist without macros and closures, but without EVAL it is
not Lisp any more.
You completely miss the point. EVAL is the basic model of Lisp and can
be expressed in the same Lisp language. This is the powerful point. One
cannot as easily describe a C evaluator in C. That EVAL exists,
however, does not mean that actual explicit calls to EVAL are somehow
essential to Lisp programming. EVAL has a crucial role in the whole
process, but that role shouldn't be a speaking part. More like
"executive producer." If the executive producer weren't there, the play
could not go on. But he doesn't walk out to center stage to announce
his presence.
.
- References:
- eval use ?
- From: newbie
- Re: eval use ?
- From: Majorinc , Kazimir
- Re: eval use ?
- From: M Jared Finder
- Re: eval use ?
- From: Majorinc , Kazimir
- Re: eval use ?
- From: Ivan Boldyrev
- Re: eval use ?
- From: Majorinc , Kazimir
- eval use ?
- Prev by Date: Re: eval use ?
- Next by Date: Re: car v/s first
- Previous by thread: Re: eval use ?
- Next by thread: Re: eval use ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
