[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] metalua 0.4
- From: "Brandon Van Every" <bvanevery@...>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:15:19 -0500
On Feb 7, 2008 11:28 AM, Fabien <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Then, there are macros. Macros are extremely powerful; as we've seen, they
> can make everything look OK, so it's hard for the language to convey
> opinion, and for a consensus on what's idiomatic to emerge. Another problem
> is, since by using them you essentially design your own single-use language
> for your application, you're the only one in the world using that language
But every API and every piece of software out there is similarly
unique. In order to use someone else's code, I have to figure out
what the heck is going on with it. How much pain does that require?
It depends on the design, the documentation, and the degree to which a
community has already been built. Macros aren't a dealbreaker here.
They aren't any worse than a baroque OO hierarchy or an ill-conceived
pile of function calls.
Rather than trying to see the history of Lisp as a product of its
syntax, you might just say, "AI Winter killed it." C had a huge
installed base. C++ took off. Java took off from C++. C# took off
from Java. Worse Is Better. Also, Common Lisp made the hugely stupid
decision of not defining a C FFI. C++ did, assuring its popularity.
Once Java came onto the scene, a C++ FFI wasn't necessary for Java
because the OO paradigm was firmly entrenched in the mainstream. C++,
Java, and C# were designed to have huge amounts of money in them.
That's why the Java guys will learn all kinds of abstruse crap,
they're getting paid.
Brandon Van Every