News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005). Parent comment

Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by qwertyuiop924 on Saturday September 10, 2016 @05:50PM (#12471035)
...TCL doesn't have macros, it has fexprs, and uplevel. It also has no effective hygene mechanisms, and unless you want to use regex to parse the tree every time your function fires, you can't do the kinds of code transforms macros can.

Don't get me wrong, TCL is super cool, but it doesn't have quite the same powers as lisp. Although you are correct, it's a better lisp than ruby.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by mroll on Saturday September 10, 2016 @06:18PM (#12471119)
Do you know about the sugar package? Sugar implements real lisp macros.

http://wiki.tcl.tk/11155

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by qwertyuiop924 on Saturday September 10, 2016 @06:35PM (#12471176)
Huh. Meh, the lack of Macros aren't a problem. The problem is lack of arbitrary code transformation, which isn't as fixable.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by mroll on Saturday September 10, 2016 @06:39PM (#12471198)
There is arbitrary code transformation in tcl through subst or string map
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by qwertyuiop924 on Saturday September 10, 2016 @06:51PM (#12471233)
Yeah, because regex is so great at parsing code. It's not like that'll break in unexpected ways. And we all just love writing parsers in our macros.

Oh, wait.

[ Parent | on HN ]