Why don't people like lisp?
d95-bli at nada.kth.se
Wed Oct 22 16:59:27 CEST 2003
Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it> writes:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
> > In the case of Python, couldn't you rightfully regard it as driven by a
> > one-man commitee? ;-)
> Ah, what a wonderfully meaningful view that is.
> >> Specifically: when you want to ALTER SYNTAX...
> > If it were only about making small alterations to the syntax, I wouldn't
> I didn't say SMALL. Small or large, it's about alteration to the
> syntax. Other lispers have posted (on several of this unending
> multitude of threads, many but not all of which I've killfiled)
> stating outright that there is no semantic you can only implement
> with macros: that macros are ONLY to "make things pretty" for
> given semantics. If you disagree with them, I suggest pistols at
> ten paces, but it's up to you lispers of course -- as long as
> you guys with your huge collective experience of macros stop saying
> a million completely contradictory things about them and chastising
> me because (due, you all keep claiming, to my lack of experience)
> I don't agree with all of them, I'll be glad to debate this again.
Why is this so surprising? Maybe different lispers use macros for
different things, or see different advantages to them? What all have
in common though, is that they all consider macros a valuable and
important part of a programming language. What I have seen in this
thread are your (Alex) lengthy posts where you reiterate the same
uniformed views of macros over and over again. You seem to have made
your mind up already, even though you don not seem to have fully
understood Common Lisp macros yet. Am I wrong?
> Till then, this is yet another thread that get killfiled.
Why do you bother to post if you are not even going to read the
> But, until then -- bye. And now, to killfile this thread too....
What is the point in initiating a subthread by an almost 300-line,
very opinionated post just to immediately killfile it?
More information about the Python-list