[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate




On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Matthias Neubauer wrote:

>Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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