Re:Ask HN: Production Lisp in 2020?
by tolsen718 on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @09:31AM
(#23234665)
I don't think another language's macros can match lisp macros unless the other language is also homoiconic.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Latter-day Dylan is infix with a Scheme-y macro system: https://opendylan.org/books/dpg/macros.html
Cue arguments, I guess, about whether Scheme is a Lisp, whatever their standards say.
Re:Ask HN: Production Lisp in 2020?
by neutronicus on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @11:20AM
(#23235804)
Clojure is weakly heteroiconic and seems to have rough parity
Re:Ask HN: Production Lisp in 2020?
by fiddlerwoaroof on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @12:02PM
(#23236351)
Clojure is “homoiconic”: Clojure source code is represented in terms of the data structures Clojure applications manipulate. There’s nothing preventing Common Lisp from having a similar surface syntax either: a couple read macros on [ and {, and a library of normal macros would be sufficient and could probably be written over a weekend.
In fact, since Common Lisp "source code" is NOT defined in terms of text but data structures (that happen to have standard serialization/deserialization) and that's the level that macros work on, you could theoretically even make semi-algolish syntax and still keep CL's macro system.
It would just look weird as fuck.
Re:Ask HN: Production Lisp in 2020?
by fiddlerwoaroof on Thursday May 21, 2020 @10:13PM
(#23268042)
That's one example, not as crazy as what's possible. Though I have to say I dislike the indent based blocks :/
Re:Ask HN: Production Lisp in 2020?
by alehander42 on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @11:52AM
(#23248331)
i am not sure: you can have "quoting" without this property