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: 103376,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.rcn.net!news.rcn.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:38:26 -0600 Sender: jsa@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada) References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <1110032222.447846.167060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org> <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk> <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org> <1110052142.832650@athnrd02> <1110284070.410136.205090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <395uqaF5rhu2mU1@individual.net> <1111607633.301232.62490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1111628011.160315.134740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1111794348.874993.298340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: jayessay Organization: Tangible Date: 25 Mar 2005 22:42:58 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.6.25.79 X-Trace: sv3-t92fnadTY7SgQlRIZavqUqbRIkmlaulXHRXEWWmrKMGEal5mH13LHTz++BEniBxL5npzTMPqoWiXVFS!aZA4pFnVETBvjCJDabYLuaPDgxkq3dnApGeoyoaH2LIKHPrOlIe0W5CF2Cbouu87UgGtTxQceVTH X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.31 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10010 comp.lang.c++:47315 comp.realtime:1733 comp.software-eng:5349 Date: 2005-03-25T22:42:58-05:00 List-Id: "Jerry Coffin" writes: > jayessay wrote: > > [ ... ] > > > > A preprocessor per so, no. The type of capabilities is a different > > > story. For example, Lisp includes macros. Most assemblers include > > > (much more extensive) macros as well as an eqiuvalent of C's > > > #if/#ifdef/#ifndef/#endif. > > > > Lisp macros are _not_ a preprocessor and they are _vastly_ more > > capable than what people typically think of when they see/hear > > "macros". Lisp macros are full code analyzing and generating > > constructs. > > I very specifcally said they were not in a preprocessor, and merely > that they provide capabilities similar to those available in the > preprocessor in C++. And this is just _completely_ untrue. Not even close. > but it's more or less beside the point -- which was that Ada > provides substantially less still. While I agree with you on this, I don't really care. > Lisp only came into the conversation at all because it was implied that > the C preprocessor was _so_ unusual that nothing else provided even > vaguely similar capabilities. Lisp coming into the conversation here is just a _bad_ thing to do. Not because you are wrong about "preprocessors" being unusual (you're right - they aren't.), but because you "equate" (in any sense) Lisp macros as being a "preprocessor". They aren't. Indeed due to they way they are defined they _can't_ be. And it is this _way_ in which they are defined that makes them so totally different and _vastly_ more capable. If you were stupid enough to waste your time doing so, you could write a C++ compiler _as_ Lisp macros. > something utterly unique. I certainly did not mean to imply any > particularly strong similarity between C macros and those in Lisp. As > far as that goes, most assemblers have far more macro capability as > well OK, thanks. And I agree with the macro assembler comment as well. > > Robert Duff made a comment a while ago about how silly most (I would > > say without much hyperbole 99+%) of the points in these threads would > > be to Lisp (and Smalltalk) folks. I couldn't agree more. > > As usualy, I disagree -- and I also use Lisp part of the time, and have > not only used Smalltalk, but written a fairly substantial part of a > Smalltalk implementation. Then you don't really understand the fundamental aspect of Lisp. Just hacking a line or two of Scheme or even CL is not "using" Lisp. > Nonetheless, I didn't and don't see the arguments as silly from either > direction. I see people who have chosen particular areas in which to > pursue their vision of perfection. While I consider it perfectly > reasonable to disagree with them, I hope I never become so > self-satisfied or condescending as to pronounce their concerns or > vision as "silly" or anything like it. Too late. /Jon -- 'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com