Re: Explanation of macros; Haskell macros

Discussion in 'Python' started by mike420@ziplip.com, Oct 31, 2003.

  1. Guest

    {newsgroup list trimmed}

    >> "Anton van Straaten" <> writes:

    >
    >>>Yes, but the point is that with a concise syntax for lambda, entire
    >>>classes of macros can become unnecessary. That's how Smalltalk
    >>>handles 'if', for example - no macros or special forms needed.


    I keep hearing good (or at least interesting) things about Smalltalk.
    But back when I looked at it, I was really unimpressed by its
    community. The mood is generally like "Yeah, Smalltalk is dead,
    let's finish the projects we are working on in Smalltalk and
    move on". At least we, Lispers, are militant and aim for world
    domination. This defeatism discouraged me from seriously studying
    Smalltalk. In addition to short LAMBDA (is it shorter than "\" ?),
    what interesting features does Smalltalk have that Lisp does *not*
    have?

    By the way, you can have short LAMBDA in Lisp too:

    (defmacro \(&rest rest) `(lambda ,@rest))
    , Oct 31, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Smalltalk is far from dead - we get thousands of downloads for Cincom
    Smalltalk NC, and we have a very active developer community. Check
    out the Smalltalk IRC channel:

    http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/VisualWorks/IRC

    and see what people are up to

    On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:40:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:

    >{newsgroup list trimmed}
    >
    >>> "Anton van Straaten" <> writes:

    >>
    >>>>Yes, but the point is that with a concise syntax for lambda, entire
    >>>>classes of macros can become unnecessary. That's how Smalltalk
    >>>>handles 'if', for example - no macros or special forms needed.

    >
    >I keep hearing good (or at least interesting) things about Smalltalk.
    >But back when I looked at it, I was really unimpressed by its
    >community. The mood is generally like "Yeah, Smalltalk is dead,
    >let's finish the projects we are working on in Smalltalk and
    >move on". At least we, Lispers, are militant and aim for world
    >domination. This defeatism discouraged me from seriously studying
    >Smalltalk. In addition to short LAMBDA (is it shorter than "\" ?),
    >what interesting features does Smalltalk have that Lisp does *not*
    >have?
    >
    >By the way, you can have short LAMBDA in Lisp too:
    >
    >(defmacro \(&rest rest) `(lambda ,@rest))


    <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
    James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
    http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView
    James A. Robertson, Oct 31, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave Harris Guest

    () wrote (abridged):
    > I keep hearing good (or at least interesting) things about Smalltalk.
    > But back when I looked at it, I was really unimpressed by its
    > community. The mood is generally like "Yeah, Smalltalk is dead,
    > let's finish the projects we are working on in Smalltalk and
    > move on". At least we, Lispers, are militant and aim for world
    > domination. This defeatism discouraged me from seriously studying
    > Smalltalk.


    When was that? In recent years Smalltalk has acquired an ANSI standard, it
    has several important new implementations (Squeak, Dolphin, S#), was the
    birthplace of the Refactoring Browser and Extreme Programming. I'd say it
    was pretty vibrant.


    > In addition to short LAMBDA (is it shorter than "\" ?), what
    > interesting features does Smalltalk have that Lisp does *not* have?


    I like it because of its concrete object model and syntax.

    I realise Lisp lets you build just about any object model you want, but
    this is an area where the cutting down of possibilities is helpful
    (assuming Smalltalk matches what you want to do).

    I find Lisp syntax to be too austere. It gives me too few clues as to
    semantics. I believe Smalltalk is about the right balance between that
    austerity on the one hand, and the full-on "different syntax for every
    concept" of languages like C. (Actually I'd like just a leetle more syntax
    than what Smalltalk has, but I don't know how to add it without screwing
    it up.)

    -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK
    Dave Harris, Oct 31, 2003
    #3
  4. Dave Harris wrote:

    > () wrote (abridged):
    >
    >>I keep hearing good (or at least interesting) things about Smalltalk.
    >>But back when I looked at it, I was really unimpressed by its
    >>community. The mood is generally like "Yeah, Smalltalk is dead,
    >>let's finish the projects we are working on in Smalltalk and
    >>move on". At least we, Lispers, are militant and aim for world
    >>domination. This defeatism discouraged me from seriously studying
    >>Smalltalk.

    >
    >
    > When was that? In recent years Smalltalk has acquired an ANSI standard, it
    > has several important new implementations (Squeak, Dolphin, S#), was the
    > birthplace of the Refactoring Browser and Extreme Programming. I'd say it
    > was pretty vibrant.


    mike420 is a troll.

    Apart from that it seems to me that many Smalltalkers have spent several
    years in the Java community, because "it's not _that_ bad", but now that
    they realize that "it _is_ _that_ bad" they are returning. ;)

    >>In addition to short LAMBDA (is it shorter than "\" ?), what
    >>interesting features does Smalltalk have that Lisp does *not* have?

    >
    > I like it because of its concrete object model and syntax.
    >
    > I realise Lisp lets you build just about any object model you want, but
    > this is an area where the cutting down of possibilities is helpful
    > (assuming Smalltalk matches what you want to do).


    Why is it that computer science is the only field in which "cutting down
    possibilities" is considered to be "helpful"?!?


    Pascal
    Pascal Costanza, Oct 31, 2003
    #4
  5. Dave Harris Guest

    (Pascal Costanza) wrote (abridged):
    > mike420 is a troll.


    Yes, but I enjoyed thinking and writing about his questions.


    > Why is it that computer science is the only field in which "cutting
    > down possibilities" is considered to be "helpful"?!?


    It's not. There's a maxim, "Form liberates". I think it's very profound
    and general. There's nothing so scary as a blank page.

    For example, I find it easier to write C++ code if I adhere to a style
    guide, consistent indentation and naming etc. The freedom to indent all
    over the place just isn't useful. Having to make a decision about
    indentation at each line can lead to a form of analysis paralysis.

    Likewise with working in stone, or any physical medium. Or attempting to
    write under artificial constraints, such as without using the letter 'e'.
    Such constraints can encourage, even force, more creative solutions.

    -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK
    Dave Harris, Nov 1, 2003
    #5
  6. Guest

    (Dave Harris) writes:

    > There's a maxim, "Form liberates". I think it's very profound
    > and general. There's nothing so scary as a blank page.


    But not universally true. The good artist adheres to form, the great
    artist knows when to break it.
    , Nov 1, 2003
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    80
    Views:
    2,417
    Stephen J. Bevan
    Nov 7, 2003
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    439
    Marco Antoniotti
    Oct 7, 2003
  3. Michael T. Babcock

    Re: Explanation of macros; Haskell macros

    Michael T. Babcock, Nov 3, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    515
    Michael T. Babcock
    Nov 3, 2003
  4. Casey Hawthorne
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    329
  5. Alia Khouri
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    240
    Alia Khouri
    Oct 31, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page