Re:The Machine That Builds Itself: The Strengths of the Lisp...
by pathsjs on Monday July 02, 2018 @12:13PM
(#17442901)
As it turns out, you can have a powerful macro system without s-expr syntax (e.g. Scala, Nim). In any case, you jus need to write functions that operate over trees, which you can do in any language. That this tree is not immediately reflected in the actual syntax is just a minor hindrance
Re:The Machine That Builds Itself: The Strengths of the Lisp...
by KingMob on Monday July 02, 2018 @04:36PM
(#17445122)
Personally, I find homoiconicity is key to easy construction of macros, and to do that, you need s-exprs (or something similar).
Without that, it's certainly doable, but the result looks nothing like your non-macro code in that language.
Re:The Machine That Builds Itself: The Strengths of the Lisp...
by yvdriess on Monday July 02, 2018 @01:12PM
(#17443482)
Writing non-trivial macros in Scala or Nim will quickly liberate you of this notion.
Arguably, the s-expr syntax is what enables the rich code-as-data metaprogramming that you find in Lisps. Working with full macros in a sexpr language is already complex enough, the an extra layer of complexity that non-sexpr language add really breaks that camel in half. The point is, you really need code == AST parity to make a powerful macro system workable. You don't necessarily need the parans, but complaining about parens is really missing the point.