Re: Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?

In article <87r72aui27.fsf@xxxxxxxxx>,
Burton Samograd <kruhft@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

And the problem with forcing ((...) ...) to be an error is not losing
expressiveness, it's losing the ability to implement certain kinds of
DSLs (like the new macro system I'm working on) in a straightforward
manner. I can hack my implementation to do the Right Thing with ((...)
...) in two lines of code, and then I can implement the key feature of
my macro system (the ability to refer directly to a top-level binding)
in another two lines of code. But to do it in portable CL requires many
dozens of lines of very hacky code (because I have to shoehorn the
binding into a symbol to trick CL into calling it). It's very annoying.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that found this behaviour annoying.
The conciseness of ((..)...) and not having to think about two name
spaces is much more freeing. There are (somewhat contrived IMO)
reasons for two name spaces, but I fail to see the benefits after
hitting right into the consiquences right at the start.

I like(d) lisp because it has untyped symbols; as I used CL I found
out it did not. I *want* to be able to stuff a function reference
into any symbol, because it makes sense (especially with my
interest in metaprogramming), now there are exceptions that get in the
way of creativity that bother me.

Yes, maybe I'll have to move to Scheme. I like this camp though...

Scheme has its own set of annoyances. On the whole I find CL less
annoying, but ((...) ...) it particularly irksome because it's a
gratuitous restriction that is impossible to fix at the user level.

rg
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?
    ... DSLs (like the new macro system I'm working on) in a straightforward ... my macro system (the ability to refer directly to a top-level binding) ... I'm glad I wasn't the only one that found this behaviour annoying. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?
    ... gaining any expressiveness. ... DSLs (like the new macro system I'm working on) in a straightforward ... my macro system (the ability to refer directly to a top-level binding) ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: scheme seems neater
    ... > a good macro system for Scheme has been harder ... system for Scheme has been harder". ... than the kind defmacro offers. ... syntax-case as standard, so defmacro may still be the best option in some ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Finally, a clear statement of the "myth", was Re: scheme seems neater
    ... > macro system for Scheme" harder. ... opportunities for accidental capture, ... for Scheme was the greater likelihood of unintended capture. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: scheme seems neater
    ... > don't inluide in hygiene? ... > There seems to be significant difference of opinion in the Scheme ... community wants it to be Scheme's standard, or only, macro system. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)