|
question on the opaque syntax object debate
Andrew Wilcox
(18 Aug 2005 15:58 UTC)
|
|
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate
Andre van Tonder
(18 Aug 2005 16:59 UTC)
|
|
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate
Jens Axel Søgaard
(21 Aug 2005 10:16 UTC)
|
|
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate
Michael Sperber
(20 Aug 2005 06:50 UTC)
|
|
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate
Matthias Neubauer
(20 Aug 2005 13:19 UTC)
|
|
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate bear (20 Aug 2005 19:24 UTC)
|
|
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate
Andre van Tonder
(20 Aug 2005 19:48 UTC)
|
|
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate
Michael Sperber
(21 Aug 2005 09:50 UTC)
|
|
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate
bear
(21 Aug 2005 12:31 UTC)
|
|
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate
Panu Kalliokoski
(21 Aug 2005 14:14 UTC)
|
|
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate
Michael Sperber
(22 Aug 2005 16:00 UTC)
|
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Matthias Neubauer wrote:
>Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>I don't get it either. I, for my part, I'm rather underwhelmed ...
> This all seems to bring us back to the "good old times" where there
> was no real separation between code and data---this time, it just
> happens "one stage further up" ...
Check me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the only real problem with
that was the performance hit. Lisp gives up some expressiveness (not
turing-completeness, but convenience of expression) when it's divided
into stages. ("compilation is a performance hack!")
I mean, if there were no performance problems, wouldn't it be more
powerful to be programming in a lisp where there were no separate
macroexpansion and compilation phases, and all the semantics were
available at runtime?
Bear