Timeline for In what area is LISP's macro better than Ruby's "ability" to create DSL
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2017 at 10:24 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 10, 2017 at 3:01 | |||||
| Jun 5, 2017 at 10:06 | history | protected | gnat | ||
| Jun 5, 2017 at 8:27 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSoftEng/status/871644725903806464 | ||
| Jun 5, 2017 at 7:03 | answer | added | Throw Away Account | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 9:23 | comment | added | user1249 | C macros are vastly different from Lisp macros. Do not compare the two. | |
| Jun 3, 2011 at 15:38 | comment | added | btilly | @Tim Post: The original, version of the question was quite argumentative. There was very much a flavor of, "Here is what Ruby does, is there any way in which LISP macros are better?" That has improved substantially after the edits. | |
| Jun 3, 2011 at 15:26 | comment | added | SK-logic | @David Thornley, C++ templates are not as capable as Lisp macros: there is no way to refer to the environment or to share a state in between transforms. Being Turing-complete is not nearly enough. | |
| Jun 3, 2011 at 15:09 | comment | added | David Thornley | @OnesimusUnbound: I really would include C++'s templates in your list of language examples, since they are at least theoretically capable of any computation the Lisp macro system can do. As far as Lisp's macros go, get hold of some good Common Lisp code (there's plenty of F/OS Lisp code out there), and search for "defmacro" (you may want to do a case-insensitive search). You'll probably find a whole lot of them. Consider that macros are harder than functions to write and get right, and you'll realize they have to be generally useful. | |
| Jun 3, 2011 at 14:58 | comment | added | OnesimusUnbound | @David Thornley, I've updated the post, particularly on C\C++ , and place emphasis on C. As for Common Lisp, I was feeling that since other programming languages have higher abstraction, it's macro feature is for special case. I posted the question, hoping that others will show me that CL's macro isn't for special case is still a powerful feature. | |
| Jun 3, 2011 at 14:53 | history | edited | OnesimusUnbound | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Updated post based on feedback; deleted 41 characters in body
|
| Jun 3, 2011 at 14:45 | comment | added | David Thornley | @Tim Post: One problem is that this really isn't an easy question to answer unless you know both Common Lisp and Ruby well. Another is the fairly ignorant references to other languages, which may annoy purists: there is no language called C/C++, and the significant part of C++ is the template system, and the suggestion that Common Lisp's macro system is only applicable to special cases. Fundamentally, it's a good question, but it's written badly and is hard to answer. | |
| Jun 3, 2011 at 14:21 | comment | added | SK-logic | Try to implement something like this in Ruby: meta-alternative.net/pfront.pdf | |
| Jun 3, 2011 at 14:13 | vote | accept | OnesimusUnbound | ||
| Jun 3, 2011 at 13:00 | history | edited | OnesimusUnbound | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 735 characters in body
|
| Jun 3, 2011 at 11:56 | history | edited | Walter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed grammar
|
| Jun 3, 2011 at 6:36 | comment | added | user131 | I'm not quite sure why there's close votes on this. I though this is the kind of question we want ? Interesting, thought provoking and the scope is defined quite well. | |
| Jun 3, 2011 at 6:23 | answer | added | Jon Purdy | timeline score: 14 | |
| Jun 3, 2011 at 6:19 | answer | added | btilly | timeline score: 24 | |
| Jun 3, 2011 at 5:53 | history | asked | OnesimusUnbound | CC BY-SA 3.0 |