Re:Of Lisp Macros and Washing Machines (2011)
by robmil on Saturday March 30, 2013 @08:33AM
(#5465221)
Not that I'd necessarily agree with it, but I think you're missing his overall point there: he's arguing that those things are time savers, but only for tasks within the domain they were designed to tackle, whereas macros allow more general and more automated solutions, saving time across all domains.
Re:Of Lisp Macros and Washing Machines (2011)
by brudgers on Saturday March 30, 2013 @09:22AM
(#5465320)
"I don't think I follow this story."
The author's ultimate reference point is the Lisp Machine. Being Lisp "all the way down," the user could modify running code even at the OS level upon encountering an error or other undesirable result.
Re:Of Lisp Macros and Washing Machines (2011)
by Guvante on Saturday March 30, 2013 @02:04PM
(#5466149)
The idea of someone updating the kernel due to an undesirable result makes me fear for my life. "That's odd, why is it failing when I deref 0, that is an odd check, I will just remove it"
Re:Of Lisp Macros and Washing Machines (2011)
by ScottBurson on Saturday March 30, 2013 @02:11PM
(#5466173)
That's why Lisp Machines were single-user workstations :-)
With minor exceptions.
The LMI Lambda 3x3 was kind of a three user machine.
Re:Of Lisp Macros and Washing Machines (2011)
by brudgers on Saturday March 30, 2013 @06:33PM
(#5466900)
https://kernel.org/
Be very afraid.
Re:Of Lisp Macros and Washing Machines (2011)
by victorh on Saturday March 30, 2013 @12:13PM
(#5465809)
Under the assumption that Lisp is the best programming language that will ever be created and the x86 processor is a horribly flawed piece of garbage the author is correct.
Hey, one out of two ain't bad.
Re:Of Lisp Macros and Washing Machines (2011)
by betterunix on Saturday March 30, 2013 @01:33PM
(#5466049)
Both are pretty good, actually. Lisp is a great language, and its features have been highly influential (and Lisp-influenced features have generally been good things). x86 is a terrible architecture, and it has only survived because of the need for binary compatibility.
spreadsheets? Unix? C++? Unmodifiable syntax? The theory behind every single one of these concepts was to save time.
Faster calculations, an OS with a simple concept applied everywhere, a language implementing an interesting design pattern, a style designed to reduce bugs.
I don't think I follow this story.