On Sep 10, 1:10 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Adam Burry <[email protected]> wrote ..
>
> > On Sep 9, 5:06 pm, alux <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > But, @Luc
> > > "pushing the advantage of Lisp
> > > macros to the forefront is not obvious if the audience cannot compare
> > > with another (good/simple) implementation they understand well."
>
> > > Thats why I want to use a nifty metaphor ;-)
>
> > Even your dumbest Java developer knows that javac (or ant, or maven,
> > or Eclipse, or *something*) converts their source to JVM byte code.
> > Finding a familiar example is not hard.
>
> ??? converting to byte code (machine instructions) has nothing to do with
> macro processing... Macros can stand by themselves without being embedded
> in a compiler (m4, ...)
>
> Or perhaps I miss understood your statement ?
It has everything to do with macro processing. Macros convert one
expression into another. For example, depending on how your lisp is
set up:
(cond
(case1 action1)
(case2 action2)
(case3 action3))
can map to:
(if case1 action1
(if case2 action2
(if case3 action3 'nil)))
What do you think the compiler does?
Recall, the OP said:
How do I describe what it is all about in this "Code is Data", and
"Macros let
you grow your own language towards the problem" stuff?
Well, Java is data to javac.
Adam
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
