4 ms·
Lispers, I found this interesting, from 1:30: -- "Do you miss laziness, from Haskell?" -- "Yes. Absolutely. I have macros in Erlang to simulate it, and I use
by lsb 17y ago
Lispers, I found this interesting, from 1:30:
-- "Do you miss laziness, from Haskell?"
-- "Yes. Absolutely. I have macros in Erlang to simulate it, and I used them all the time."
Are Lisp's macros more popular for transforming code, or for introducing laziness?
- gruseom 17y agoThe former.
- alec 17y agoLisp's macros are foremost a cheap anonymous lambda - with-open-file, dolist, and the like don't need to be macros, but it's much more convenient and efficient than passing a lambda to another function. Certainly, though, transforming code is more popular than introducing laziness.
- richcollins 17y agoYou should check out Io. It is an OO language with laziness: http://www.iolanguage.com/scm/git/checkout/Io/docs/IoGuide.html http://www.iolanguage.com/scm/git/checkout/Io/docs/IoGuide.h... (see the Messages section).
- silentbicycle 17y agoAs an aside, the reason that laziness isn't as popular a strategy in Erlang is probably because it conflicts with the language's priority on (soft) real-time behavior. Being reasonably certain about upper bounds for time (and space) is very important in Erlang's niche.