News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Compiling Dynamic Languages (2013) [pdf] by chrisseaton on Sunday April 14, 2019 @09:23AM (#19659269)
Yeah I get it's problematic.

But if you're going to start cutting out the dynamic features, and those you don't think aren't desirable, then why are you challenging yourself to write a compiler language for a dynamic language in the first place? You could cut out all these troublesome features if you just picked a static language.

Re:Compiling Dynamic Languages (2013) [pdf] by coldtea on Sunday April 14, 2019 @10:41AM (#19659659)
Because you don't need eval to do hugely interesting things in dynamic languages.

Heck, you don't even particularly need reflection, but eval even less so.

Re:Compiling Dynamic Languages (2013) [pdf] by lispm on Sunday April 14, 2019 @09:29AM (#19659301)
One of the reasons is that a class of deployed programs might not need EVAL at all or that it is also not allowed to have EVAL for some reasons.
Re:Compiling Dynamic Languages (2013) [pdf] by justbaker on Monday April 15, 2019 @02:37PM (#19667669)
I don't think using eval is the main problem he's trying to solve. Eval isn't really a good example of "dynamic programming done right". You don't even need eval to metaprogram in JS.