Software Engineering Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professionals, academics, and students working within the systems development life cycle. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I've read recently that macro support in Scala is now official. I checked the documentation page and they are reminiscent to the LISP ones. In one of his essays Paul Graham writes that when "you add this final increment of power" to a language it is no longer a new one but a lisp dialect.
Is this the case with Scala? It does not seem like a LISP dialect to me and the macro support in Scala is somewhat awkward for me.
The Lisp family of languages is a fuzzy concept. The key aspects seems to be
The big place where Scala falls down in is 3. Scala is hilariously not homoiconic and this is not a bad thing necessarily.
It does have one major effect though: in Lisps, part of what makes macros so powerful is that they're so easy. In common lisp a macro is literally a function that returns a list. That's it.
In Scala or Haskell (Template Haskell), compile time meta programming is something that experts do, in Lisp, macros are what everyone does.
Scala also fails 4 being very strongly statically typed. There are pragmatic ways that you can convince the compiler to accept some level of dynamic typing, but you're definitely fighting the language then.
My thought is that Scala, like many, is influenced by Lisp, but it isn't a dialect.
No, Scala is obviously not a Lisp dialect in any meaningful sense. If you look at what he says:
I mention this mostly as a joke, but it is quite true. If you define a language that has car, cdr, cons, quote, cond, atom, eq, and a notation for functions expressed as lists, then you can build all the rest of Lisp out of it.
So, you can write a dialect of Lisp based on Scala, perhaps even as an internal DSL, but that doesn't mean that all Scala programs will belong to this dialect.
Not in any way that one would normally identify a Lisp. I believe Paul Graham is hyperbolizing here a bit. He's an extremely big proponent of Lisp-family languages (having written one himself).
As far as I know, these are some of the general traits all Lisps share:
You might be able to remove one element or so from those and still argue that your language is close enough to the Lisp family to be considered a Lisp. Scala, on the other hand:
Unless you define a Lisp simply to be "A language with Macros", Scala doesn't fit the bill.
