News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ask YC: Ruby and Lisp devs, please answer this (Not a fla... by Tichy on Monday January 14, 2008 @03:53PM (#98290)
I thought that Arc is written in Scheme, not in Common Lisp? Are Scheme Macros equally powerful?

Edit: OK, perhaps Arc is written in Scheme, but Arc itself features CL like macros, that would explain it ;-)

Re:Ask YC: Ruby and Lisp devs, please answer this (Not a fla... by pg on Monday January 14, 2008 @04:40PM (#98311)
Arc is written in Scheme in the sense that it compiles into Scheme, and uses the Scheme read, numbers, etc. But Arc macros are not Scheme macros.
Re:Ask YC: Ruby and Lisp devs, please answer this (Not a fla... by apgwoz on Monday January 14, 2008 @06:58PM (#98406)
Scheme also has "CL" like macros that are hygienic. Scheme 48 for instance, supports explicit renaming macros and MIT has syntactic closures. However, most schemes have a library that adds your traditional defmacro style macros, CL users are likely to want, but there use is almost always discouraged.
Re:Ask YC: Ruby and Lisp devs, please answer this (Not a fla... by eru on Monday January 14, 2008 @04:10PM (#98296)
As far as I know Arc is written on top of MzScheme. Besides its 'clean' macros - MzScheme supports CL like macros, too. But your explanation could be correct as well.