Re: A "killer" macro



On Sep 13, 5:30 am, Eli Bendersky <eli...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Lisp excels at _____ (fill in the blank). Now you've at least
eliminated some possibilities in your search.

(Maybe you already filled-in the blank with this macro capability you
spoke of. However, if it is difficult to find something here dramatic
enough to impress your friends, perhaps you can list other Lisp
"standout" features? Or perhaps Lisp doesn't have one thing ultra-
dramatic in one particular category, but a lot of less dramatic things
in many categories, and these things all add up in the end? If
nothing else, at least Lisp's syntax isn't nearly as grotesque and
burdensome as something like Java's. Come on - look at a Java "Hello
World" program, with the class declaration, the "public static void
main," the "System.blah.whatever.printblah" hideousness, etc. - but
then again if it hasn't already occurred to a Java programmer to hate
all of that stuff, you are probably barking up the wrong tree with
trying to convert that particular person.)

Regards.

But you see, as I mentioned in my original post, Lisp really stands
out only in its macros, because all the rest was already implemented
in other languages. Yes, 20 years ago Lisp was amazing - compared with
C, Fortran and Pascal, but these days with Perl, Ruby and even C# 3.0
around, the only thing that *really* sets Lisp apart is macros.

Eli

.... and multimethods and the "what you print is what you read is what
you print" principle and I have not seen any convincing equivalent of
DISASSEMBLE in either Perl, Ruby etc etc.

Cheers

Marco

.