At the Boston Lisp Meeting I gave a variant of my LambdaConf 2019 talk about lessons going from Lisp to OCaml—to a crowd of Lispers rather than typed FPers. I now think I should go back to Lisp, because I myself can add types to Lisp more easily than macros to OCaml or Haskell.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Ngnghm
What would macros add to Haskell? My understanding is macros are needed in langs w eager eval (Lisps) to let you define abstractions that defer eval. Haskell is lazy everywhere. Is there some other important use of macros?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @billburcham @Ngnghm
In my experience, macros allow you to add language features on your own instead of having to modify the language. You can make the language fit your domain instead of the other way round.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hackeryarn @Ngnghm
The classic examples from Lisp are control-flow macros. But those are doable as functions in a lazy language. Are there other examples
@hackeryarn?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
https://racket-lang.org/ Anything "Monads" do in braindead A-normal form notation, macros do with a wonderful syntactic innovation called nested expressions. Also declarative, Logic, 2D programming. Compiling RFC to code. Patterns mean "I have run out of language." — Rich Hickey
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Read my blog!