3 ms·

Ruby and Clojure are doing decently (though obviously not as popular as say C and Java) and have pretty advanced metaprogramming. For that matter C++ templates

Ruby and Clojure are doing decently (though obviously not as popular as say C and Java) and have pretty advanced metaprogramming. For that matter C++ templates are metaprogramming from what I understand, and C macros are a really really primitive form of metaprogramming. Java also has reflection which is metaprogramming-ish. I don't think the problem was metaprogramming.

agumonkey 10y ago
Not the same level of metaprogramming. Ruby Python try but it's less idiomatic or batshit crazy. C macros are glorified sed scripts, you're at the byte buffer level; it's cute but not good either. To me lisps sit at a nice middle ground where metalevels are as close as possible while still being usable. That's my take based on what people said in the 60s, after all sexps weren't supposed to be used.
marcosdumay 10y ago
When I see people talking about Closure, I don't see them talking about the power they get from metaprogramming. It's almost the opposite, people talk about the safety of FP, and power from Category Theory. For C++ templates, you get that impression and multiply by a few googols. Now, Ruby and Python communities do claim to gain power from metaprogramming. I can say that Python metaprogramming is something completely different from Lisp's one, but Ruby's is more similar. Yet, both communities put a hard limit on the amount of "magic" you should use on your programs (where Ruby's limit is way higher than Python's), so it can not become the panacea that it is in Lisp. Metaprogramming is one of the main selling points of Lisp, the only other being how easy it is to implement. Other languages have other features to show.
- kenko 10y ago
  What people talk about category theory w/r/t Clojure? Since it has almost no type system to speak of, I'd be very curious to know what in the world they're on about. Macros and the repl were, to me, the best part of clojure.
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    I see people talking about monads and applicatives all the time. I don't know Clojure, but I got the impression it has a powerful implicit type system.

agumonkey 10y ago

Not the same level of metaprogramming. Ruby Python try but it's less idiomatic or batshit crazy. C macros are glorified sed scripts, you're at the byte buffer level; it's cute but not good either. To me lisps sit at a nice middle ground where metalevels are as close as possible while still being usable. That's my take based on what people said in the 60s, after all sexps weren't supposed to be used.

marcosdumay 10y ago

When I see people talking about Closure, I don't see them talking about the power they get from metaprogramming. It's almost the opposite, people talk about the safety of FP, and power from Category Theory. For C++ templates, you get that impression and multiply by a few googols. Now, Ruby and Python communities do claim to gain power from metaprogramming. I can say that Python metaprogramming is something completely different from Lisp's one, but Ruby's is more similar. Yet, both communities put a hard limit on the amount of "magic" you should use on your programs (where Ruby's limit is way higher than Python's), so it can not become the panacea that it is in Lisp. Metaprogramming is one of the main selling points of Lisp, the only other being how easy it is to implement. Other languages have other features to show.

kenko 10y ago
What people talk about category theory w/r/t Clojure? Since it has almost no type system to speak of, I'd be very curious to know what in the world they're on about. Macros and the repl were, to me, the best part of clojure.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  I see people talking about monads and applicatives all the time. I don't know Clojure, but I got the impression it has a powerful implicit type system.