Re: why learn C?

[Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net> writes:

> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
>
>> jayessay wrote:
>> > Please.  You are embarassing yourself with this.
>> 
>> I notice you have no comment on the lack of mind-numbingness
>> in my C++ template primality tester. Given that you're wrong
>> about C++, I have no trouble believing that you're wrong about
>> Lisp as well.
>
> This is getting stupid. Jon probably knows both C++ templates and definitely
> knows Lisp quite well.
>
> The fact that you can code up a Car/Cdr abstraction in some programming
> notation does note make it lisp like. You can code these list abstractions in
> any language you choose, and that does not make a lisp.

Not to defend Hyman (who in the past was rather quick to call me
"confused" when I discussed differences of C++ Templates vs. Ada
generics and the consequences as I see them -- and yes, I'm sometimes
a bit vengeful), but:

Hymans point here was, I think that the list expressions are evaluated
during compile time. Personally _I_ do not see the need for something
like this (if I want to dabble in new type systems I write a compiler
from an extended to the target language or I use something like Qi
where even type checking is user programmable), but from that Hyman
argues that Templates are "more powerful". Others denied this (the
premise that Template expressions are "like Lisp") , so he brought
this example.

I have to admit that I didn't check Hymans example and it's
limitations and I don't now templates well enough to do so in 2
minutes (and don't want to spent more time in anothe C++ vs. Ada
thread -- the weather is too beautiful today), but it seemd to me that
you have been missing the point that was made here. Is that possible?

> What makes something a Lisp is a whole philosophy of symbolic, dynamic and
> introspective (and protected!) programming that C++ simply is not natively
> capable of. Also, Lisp's list syntax notation is also critical (Dylan be
> damned!), as that syntax is what allows the whole "programs as data" paradigm
> to practically work.

I completely agree with that, though.

Regards -- Markus

PS: Perhaps this post was completely besides your point. I'm not
    sure. If so, please don't feel offended :-).