"Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com> writes: > Guido van Rossum <guido@digicool.com>: > > > > Language theorists love [exec]. > > > > > > Really? I'd have thought language theorists would be the ones > > > who hate it, given all the problems it causes... > > > > Depends on where they're coming from. Or maybe I should have said > > Lisp folks... > > You are *so* right, Guido! :-) I almost commented about this in reply > to Greg's post earlier. > > Crusty old LISP hackers like me tend to be really attached to being > able to (a) lash up S-expressions that happen to be LISP function calls on > the fly, and then (b) hand them to eval. "No separation between code > and data" is one of the central dogmas of our old-time religion. Really? I thought the "no separation between code and data" thing more referred to macros than anything else. Having the full language around at compile time is one of the things that really separates Common Lisp from anything else. I don't think I've ever used #'eval in CL code - it tends to bugger up efficiency even more than the Python version does, for one thing! (eval-when (:compile-toplevel))-ly y'rs M. -- In many ways, it's a dull language, borrowing solid old concepts from many other languages & styles: boring syntax, unsurprising semantics, few automatic coercions, etc etc. But that's one of the things I like about it. -- Tim Peters, 16 Sep 93
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4