4 ms·

I'm not confused, and nothing I'm talking about is novel, eg: http://matt.might.net/articles/metacircular-evaluation-and-first-class-run-time-macros/ http://ma

I'm not confused, and nothing I'm talking about is novel, eg: http://matt.might.net/articles/metacircular-evaluation-and-first-class-run-time-macros/ http://matt.might.net/articles/metacircular-evaluation-and-f... SICP is a great way to learn lisp and learning macros by extending the evaluator is a natural progression. I don't care how many lisp experts are "correcting" me on the way it works in the real world, because: a) I actually do understand how they're implemented in existing production lisps. No, really. I am not confused. In my own toy lisp compiler, I rely on first class macros and am attempting (and so far failing) to use partial evaluation to make the implementation cost somewhat sane. I am under no illusions this is normal. b) Being an expert doesn't automatically make you good at teaching (often the correlation is reversed), and the article being commented on was a tutorial on macros. The smug lisp weenie trope exists for a reason, and it's that the lisp community is too busy falling over themselves to prove how smart they are with arcane knowledge to give a shit about the experience beginners face. Clojure gets no end of flak from CL users who bristle at the suggestion that it even be called a lisp, but the community actually gets it and does a great job of teaching. I have an opinion on how best to teach macros. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's not a good idea to extend SICP with macros, or maybe there's a better way, and I'd love to hear arguments in those directions. But correcting it by explaining how they're implemented in CL is absolutely baffling to me.

kd0amg 8y ago
"Macros" and "first-class macros" are different things. The latter are essentially fexprs. I'm not sure why you continue to insist that responses to your comments are just about how macros happen to be implemented in Common Lisp.
kazinator 8y ago
You can't teach "macros": you have to choose and teach a specific macro system (at a time), whose behavior is linked to the way(s) it is implemented. Each has its own mental models; there is no single mental model for all macros everywhere.
- reitzensteinm 8y ago
  Which is just as effective an argument against the entire of SICP. In a real lisp, a (list? <some-fn>) doesn't return true. You can't dig around inside a closure and walk the entire environment which is made up of a list of pairs. But the point of a toy model is that you can read an implementation, build your own, reason about it and send code through it with little difficulty. Once you've built eval and sent real programs through it, it's not a big jump from that to understanding how real tools work, which can generally be done incrementally. That was certainly my lisp journey, and that includes macros (which were a separate step). After implementing them in eval, learning how they're in the real world was about as challenging as reading a restaurant menu.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
lispm 8y ago
> SICP is a great way to learn lisp SICP is a book for beginner computer science students, with a focus on functional programming as base. As a Lisp book it's not really good, since it covers only very little actual Lisp and uses only a core Scheme language. There is literally nothing about macros in SICP. They are mentioned only in a few places (for example it is mentioned that DELAY would be implemented by a macro). > The smug lisp weenie trope exists for a reason, and it's that the lisp community is too busy falling over themselves to prove how smart they are with arcane knowledge to give a shit about the experience beginners face Since you ignore the large amount of literature, teaching & research on macros in the Lisp community, what you write is rather strange. Surprise: people teaching Lisp in the 60s already 'gave a shit about the experience beginners face'. > I have an opinion on how best to teach macros. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's not a good idea to extend SICP with macros, or maybe there's a better way, and I'd love to hear arguments in those directions. But correcting it by explaining how they're implemented in CL is absolutely baffling to me. Lisp teachers usually taught macros in context of actual Lisp languages and actual usage examples. Personally I prefer that as a first approach, over trying to explain how to extend a toy implementation with some homebrew macro implementation.
- reitzensteinm 8y ago
  That's fine; I prefer the latter. Maybe I'm wrong. But if I am, it's not because I don't understand how macros are actually implemented in the real world, as everyone in this massive thread seems to assume. I regret my initial comment, which was written in haste. Had I known the sheer volume of people that would jump out the woodwork to demonstrate their superior technical knowledge while avoiding the argument I was actually making, I'd have been a lot more careful about what I was trying to communicate (or more likely not have bothered, which would have saved us all a lot of time). That is where the "smug lisp weenie" trope comes from, and it's real. I don't know what it is specifically about lisp that brings it out; I can't imagine having this discussion about C#, TCL or SQL.
  - lispm 8y ago
    People with a bunch of Lisp experience have responded to what you wrote and disagreed. That's all.

kd0amg 8y ago

"Macros" and "first-class macros" are different things. The latter are essentially fexprs. I'm not sure why you continue to insist that responses to your comments are just about how macros happen to be implemented in Common Lisp.

kazinator 8y ago

You can't teach "macros": you have to choose and teach a specific macro system (at a time), whose behavior is linked to the way(s) it is implemented. Each has its own mental models; there is no single mental model for all macros everywhere.

reitzensteinm 8y ago
Which is just as effective an argument against the entire of SICP. In a real lisp, a (list? <some-fn>) doesn't return true. You can't dig around inside a closure and walk the entire environment which is made up of a list of pairs. But the point of a toy model is that you can read an implementation, build your own, reason about it and send code through it with little difficulty. Once you've built eval and sent real programs through it, it's not a big jump from that to understanding how real tools work, which can generally be done incrementally. That was certainly my lisp journey, and that includes macros (which were a separate step). After implementing them in eval, learning how they're in the real world was about as challenging as reading a restaurant menu.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

lispm 8y ago

> SICP is a great way to learn lisp SICP is a book for beginner computer science students, with a focus on functional programming as base. As a Lisp book it's not really good, since it covers only very little actual Lisp and uses only a core Scheme language. There is literally nothing about macros in SICP. They are mentioned only in a few places (for example it is mentioned that DELAY would be implemented by a macro). > The smug lisp weenie trope exists for a reason, and it's that the lisp community is too busy falling over themselves to prove how smart they are with arcane knowledge to give a shit about the experience beginners face Since you ignore the large amount of literature, teaching & research on macros in the Lisp community, what you write is rather strange. Surprise: people teaching Lisp in the 60s already 'gave a shit about the experience beginners face'. > I have an opinion on how best to teach macros. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's not a good idea to extend SICP with macros, or maybe there's a better way, and I'd love to hear arguments in those directions. But correcting it by explaining how they're implemented in CL is absolutely baffling to me. Lisp teachers usually taught macros in context of actual Lisp languages and actual usage examples. Personally I prefer that as a first approach, over trying to explain how to extend a toy implementation with some homebrew macro implementation.

reitzensteinm 8y ago
That's fine; I prefer the latter. Maybe I'm wrong. But if I am, it's not because I don't understand how macros are actually implemented in the real world, as everyone in this massive thread seems to assume. I regret my initial comment, which was written in haste. Had I known the sheer volume of people that would jump out the woodwork to demonstrate their superior technical knowledge while avoiding the argument I was actually making, I'd have been a lot more careful about what I was trying to communicate (or more likely not have bothered, which would have saved us all a lot of time). That is where the "smug lisp weenie" trope comes from, and it's real. I don't know what it is specifically about lisp that brings it out; I can't imagine having this discussion about C#, TCL or SQL.
- lispm 8y ago
  People with a bunch of Lisp experience have responded to what you wrote and disagreed. That's all.