2 ms·
As a Lisp fan myself, I wish they would show an example of how WITH-GENES or MAP-GENES encouraged encapsulation vs. objects or passing closures.
by jonathanyc 10y ago
As a Lisp fan myself, I wish they would show an example of how WITH-GENES or MAP-GENES encouraged encapsulation vs. objects or passing closures.
- abrax3141 10y agoBunch of examples here: http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/suppl_2/W28.full-text-lowres.pdf http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/suppl_2/W28.full-te...
- abrax3141 10y agoThe section of the paper where this is mentioned offers a novel (at least to me) argument in support of homoiconicity, to wit, that you build DSLs directly into the base language, which (it is asserted) makes the DSL development process more flexible (or something), and that this is important for 'living' domains, where you're trying to work out the domain semantics, like biology. So, you're not really so much building a specialized language for X, as slowly turning (almost in the sense of wood turning, as on a lathe) Lisp into X-Lang.
- Volt 10y agoA concrete example.