From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2005-09-29T16:46:46+09:00
Subject: Re: Lisp macros

Bob Hutchison wrote:
> First, I wasn't trying to contradict you, just clarify the situation
> a bit.

Ah!  Ok, then I probably misread you.  I'm sorry.

> Second, I think you may have a misconception of lisp. I'm working
> currently working on a lisp program that is about 10,000 lines of
> code without a single eval in it. I've never come across a need for
> it. No matter, eval in LispWorks, for example, compiles things, it
> doesn't interpret them. I suppose I should ask: in what way is
> compilation ever not an optimisation?

Good question.  Of course one could interpret every compiled language -
but not necessarily the other way round.  Duh!

> and, in those cases, why don't
> you think they apply to lisp?

Well, I think my point focused around the fact whether a language allows
for code modification at runtime (regardless of whether you use it or not;
I'm rather trying to grasp the nature of the language if you will).  You
can do that with Lisp and as far as I understood it's a core feature of
the language.  You can't do that with standard C (well, you *can* but that
typically involves features not part of the language like shared objects).

(A funny consequence seems to be that you can view machine code as a
dynamic language...)

Kind regards

    robert