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 Panu Kalliokoski (21 Aug 2005 14:14 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Michael Sperber (22 Aug 2005 16:00 UTC)

Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate bear 20 Aug 2005 19:23 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