Re: [ANN] metalua 0.4
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] metalua 0.4
- From: "Brandon Van Every" <bvanevery@...>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:15:19 -0500
On Feb 7, 2008 11:28 AM, Fabien <fleutot+lua@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Then, there are macros. Macros are extremely powerful; as we've seen, they
> can make everything look OK, so it's hard for the language to convey
> opinion, and for a consensus on what's idiomatic to emerge. Another problem
> is, since by using them you essentially design your own single-use language
> for your application, you're the only one in the world using that language
> variant.
But every API and every piece of software out there is similarly
unique. In order to use someone else's code, I have to figure out
what the heck is going on with it. How much pain does that require?
It depends on the design, the documentation, and the degree to which a
community has already been built. Macros aren't a dealbreaker here.
They aren't any worse than a baroque OO hierarchy or an ill-conceived
pile of function calls.
Rather than trying to see the history of Lisp as a product of its
syntax, you might just say, "AI Winter killed it." C had a huge
installed base. C++ took off. Java took off from C++. C# took off
from Java. Worse Is Better. Also, Common Lisp made the hugely stupid
decision of not defining a C FFI. C++ did, assuring its popularity.
Once Java came onto the scene, a C++ FFI wasn't necessary for Java
because the OO paradigm was firmly entrenched in the mainstream. C++,
Java, and C# were designed to have huge amounts of money in them.
That's why the Java guys will learn all kinds of abstruse crap,
they're getting paid.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every