wxPython and macros (was: Why don't people like lisp?

[Kenny Tilton]

Tayss wrote:

> Kenny Tilton <ktilton at nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<azhnb.11603$Gq.4404658 at twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> 
>>btw, regarding my use of the M word, marketing can be evil (witness Joe 
>>Camel) but in the general case it is just about communicating 
>>effectively by considering the listener.
> 
> 
> I got an interesting email too, this one with the novel solution (at
> least to me) of using "" around Python code like a lisper would use '.
>  He'd then parse and execute it using the exec statement.  To think
> that one year ago I might have dismissed such code for vague
> reasons...  And now it seems like a normal thing to do, except for the
> fact it's not a style encouraged by Python with tools, libs and docs.
> 
> So there are Python users who naturally think in a Lisp.  I was
> probably in that situation.  So some level of "marketing" is good when
> it provides good info for people who are searching for something.

yep. the interesting thing is that you cannot just leave the information 
on the doorstep and assume it will get recognized as cool by the 
inhabitants. i know, having ignored MCL ads (big long detailed ones in 
APDA catalogs) for weeks during a search which ended up with delirious 
delight... at MCL!

> 
> This thread is weird though.  My position morphed from "macros would
> keep me from making unfortunate tradeoffs" to "macros are the only
> solution!!!  Bow to lisp!!!"

Twist our arms. :)

   Maybe trolls are very good at telling
> you about yourself, and I just need to embrace the inner lisp weenie
> or something.  Or maybe I'm working with code too much lately and
> obsessing over perfection.

If you go here:

    http://alu.cliki.net/Kenny's%20RtLS%20Top-Ten

... the current #2 favorite story of mine is about a fellow effectively 
trying to hack GCC so the source he wrote could include hints to the 
compiler as to how best to "write" the assembler output. A GCC guru told 
him, "You are looking for Lisp."

I like this story because the fellow honestly was trying very hard to 
get something done, /not/ looking for an excuse to do Lisp. It just 
turned out that his requirement mapped onto something (compiler macros, 
a special kind of macro) Lisp does --not by design-- but as a 
consequence of other fortuitous design decisions.

This long "to macro or not to macro" thing has been unfortunate in that 
it has been conducted in the abstract, without actual code to point to 
that some Pythonista macro advocate argues could be improved only with 
macros. Is there  a formal proposal on the table with such a thing?

kenny


-- 
http://tilton-technology.com

Why Lisp?...

    http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film