The stupid question is the question not asked | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
My recent post proclaimed
in substance my faith on Perl6 macros as a device to
cast in syntax common programmatic patterns which were not integrated
in Perl6 standard syntax. It makes sense because a programmatic pattern may be common in some context but
not worthwhile to capture in the standard language.
It can also be a way to experiment syntactical devices that
can eventually find their way in Perl6 standard syntax.
I was pointed to this artima weblog by a (not yet archived) post in ll1. It says that macro is one of the devices that distinguish LFSPs (Languages For Smart People) and LFMs (Languages for the masse) and goes to analyse their implications. The blog author cites Gilad Bracha who advocates against the introduction of macros in Java because it is a LFM: The advantages of Java is that it easily serves as a lingua franca - everyone can read a Java program and understand what is going on. User defined macros destroy that property. What do you think? -- stefp
stefp In reply to Macros, LFSPs and LFMs by stefp
|
|