Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚑ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 748 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#lisp#macros#macro#language#code#compile#syntax#let#common#implement

Discussion (16 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

Vohlenzerβ€’about 2 hours ago
I finished Let Over Lambda recently. I'm not an experienced lisp programmer but it's strangely readable if you allow yourself to not understand every little detail of the Common Lisp code. For example I hadn't read On Lisp. I had read The Little Schemer.

It's a wonderful tour of advanced macro concepts. With several of the macros presented I found myself saying "well that's just x language feature in y" but that's missing the point. The point is that Common Lisp allows you to implement your own language features, with macros of course!

This chapter is a wonderful climax to the whole book. Lisp moving Forth moving Lisp reminded me of the intertwined nature of DNA, RNA and proteins in Biology.

There's great humour throughout the book, I especially enjoyed the little sideways jabs at Scheme programmers!

dreamcompilerβ€’41 minutes ago
> reminded me of the intertwined nature of DNA, RNA and proteins in Biology

My analogy is how a changing electric field generates a changing magnetic field which generates a changing electric field which ... is light.

Forth is the electric field and Lisp is magnetic (or vice versa). They are two sides of the same coin.

Lisp really is the Maxwell's equations of software.

pehejeβ€’about 2 hours ago
What are some genuinely useful things macros can do?
klibertpβ€’24 minutes ago
If your language has macros, you don't need to wait for it to gain async/await (and it was quite a wait even in Python and JS, while Java got its virtual threads very recently); you can just[1] implement a CPS transform as a macro:

https://github.com/nim-works/cps/blob/master/docs/cps.svg

[1] Yeah, I know, this word is extremely overworked in that sentence. Sorry, that's an exaggeration for effect. In reality, it's not that simple, and not always possible: it depends on the language and macro system. It's still more likely to be implementable in library code if there is a macro system, though.

Vohlenzerβ€’about 1 hour ago
One of the cleanest examples in the book is the CL-PPCRE library for regular expressions.

Without macros, regular expressions are strings at compile time and then at runtime objects are created based on the strings to evaluate them.

With macros, regular expressions are expanded at compile time into Common Lisp code that implements the evaluation.

There's a similar idea with an ORM library.

Without macros, the object-relational mapping is defined at compile time and any dynamic SQL is generated at run time.

With macros, the object-relational mapping is used at compile time to expand the query macros into Common Lisp code that includes the actual SQL.

Then also remember that the compiler is available at runtime in a lisp, so the distinction only matters when comparing it to non-lisps.

a-french-anonβ€’1 minute ago
CL-PPCRE actually doesn't really do what most people think it does, cf https://applied-langua.ge/posts/omrn-compiler.html#orgd52b4a... (which instead does).

A small tidbit: you don't actually need full syntactic macros to get compile time computation in CL, compiler macros (https://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/03_bb...) suffice.

LandRβ€’about 1 hour ago
Take C#, if you want a new language feature or syntax added you have to propose it to the language design team, they have to decide it's worth implementing then you have to wait on it being implemented and released and your tooling updated.

If I want some new syntax in a LISP, I just write a macro.

e.g. the following threading macro in clojure

(->> x foo bar)

Takes x and passes it as the last argument to foo, then the result of foo is passed as the last argument to bar. Alternative you have -> for passing it as the first argument. These are from the standard library, but if they weren't they would be trivial to write yourself.

And no strings involved when you write macros in lisp either. It's just lists, your macro is just building a list. Because the syntax is just lists and there's no difference between lists and the syntax.

dreamcompilerβ€’37 minutes ago
And that particular threading macro looks a lot like monadic code in Haskell, which looks a bit like Forth, which looks like a shell command with pipes.

Macros let a domain programmer (as opposed to the compiler writer) in Lisp implement almost any other programming paradigm as a native language feature.

throw-qqqqqβ€’37 minutes ago
Generally, it enables type-safe, ahead-of-time compiled code to perform work at compile time that would require runtime execution in many other languages
dreamcompilerβ€’14 minutes ago
That's true but it's not the most important aspect of macros. Macros let you define a new language that describes your problem solution more directly than you can in raw Lisp. In other words they let you create a Domain-Specific Lamguage (DSL). You can create DSLs in other languages too but it's so difficult that it's uncommon. In Lisp it's so easy that DSLs are a primary programming technique.
arvyyβ€’about 2 hours ago
all the things, if macro system is sufficiently sophisticated (ie., hygienic with ability to attach metadata to syntax object). Racket is one of languages with such system, and they implemented static typing using them.
Vohlenzerβ€’about 1 hour ago
Interestingly, Let Over Lambda eschews hygienic macros because they limit the power (and danger) inherent in macro design.
Akronymusβ€’about 2 hours ago
AFAICT, actually manipulating the AST, which then in turn allows you to implement your own language features, inserting additional debugging info, memoizing a function by just wrapping it in a macro, or optimizations based on domain knowledge.
db48xβ€’about 2 hours ago
They can define new syntax and special forms.
kamaalβ€’about 1 hour ago
I learned some Forth and played around right before the LLM trend began.

It was a mind bending experience, although I quit after a while as the programs were kind of glass sheet quality brittle as they grew.

Sometimes I feel I need to start again to keep my brain from losing thinking skills over time.