corruptmemory

3 ms·

1.
by corruptmemory 15y ago
I would say that it's another way for the government to capitalize on capitalist activity.
2.
by corruptmemory 15y ago
To reiterate a point implied by other commenters: macro-expansion is a compile-time operation. If the language utilizes a typing system to help promote sound programming then the results of the expansion will be compiled in the context of
3.
by corruptmemory 15y ago
Typed Racket is a marvelous wonder. Sadly, it is simply not appreciated enough for what it is: an utter triumph of Lisp over all challengers. ;-)
4.
by corruptmemory 15y ago
Re: Template-Haskell - sadly not enough. I have used it to generate N-tuple-generalizations of functions in toys. I simply don't get enough time to hack around in Haskell. As far as being primitive, I guess you would have to compare that
5.
by corruptmemory 15y ago
Nemerle already does it: http://nemerle.org/macros.html , so does Template Haskell: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Template_Haskell
6.
by corruptmemory 15y ago
Interesting. This is a common perception but not an easily justified one. A macro-system a-la Lisp (or Nemerle) could easily replace compiler plugins, and there is an active compiler plugin community so extensions to the compiler are desir
7.
by corruptmemory 15y ago
It was a mistake. A better effort would have been to implement a first-class Macro system a-la Lisp. You can see here that Nemerle supports macros and makes dealing with XML like relatively painless as if it were built in: http://nemerl
8.
by corruptmemory 15y ago
There are several decent Scala-esque alternatives to the built-in XML support (with has many things broken about it). For instance: Anti-XML http://anti-xml.org/ and Scala-Scales: http://code.google.com/p/scala-scales/ they can't repla
9.
by corruptmemory 15y ago
Agreed. Macros and reader macros ;-)