From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,fc52c633190162e0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: why learn C? References: <1172144043.746296.44680@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1172161751.573558.24140@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <546qkhF1tr7dtU1@mid.individual.net> <5ZULh.48$YL5.40@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <1175215906.645110.217810@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <1175230700.925143.28490@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1btkgzzj6zimp.acsq8mkzqz1w$.dlg@40tude.net> <1175488143.324741.283480@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <9l1Rh.7648$%G4.3596@trndny05> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:08:40 +0200 Message-ID: <98mz1hr66v.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:cXLK+E4OKzkJFHDIAUb+FTtF8Q4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.220.200 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1176127284 88.72.220.200 (9 Apr 2007 16:01:24 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!feeder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!62.216.30.27.MISMATCH!newsgate.cistron.nl!xs4all!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14859 Date: 2007-04-09T16:08:40+02:00 List-Id: Ray Blaak writes: > Markus E Leypold writes: >> Hymans point here was, I think that the list expressions are evaluated >> during compile time. > > Sure, his example shows that, but > a) list expressions don't make a lisp I got that point later in your post. Therefore the postscript :-). > b) template programming for compile time computations are a > convoluted way of achieving compile time computations. I completely agree with that. I even was on the verge of writing that macros and pre processors are always evil and that I think it would be better that people wrote domain specific languages as external translators to their favorite target language. Then you post reminded me that the Lisp macros are quit succesfull and don't seem to be the problem I always experienced with macro languages. Still I have a bad feeling with macros: They are a really big temptation to misuse them. I'm not sure wether that isn't the feature that makes me really mistrust Lisp and Scheme. >> PS: Perhaps this post was completely besides your point. I'm not >> sure. If so, please don't feel offended :-). > > Given usenet, I could only be offended if you are *too* polite :-). :-). Regards -- Markus