Re: Dylan Constants

[dyer@eagle.sharebase.com (Scot Dyer)]

On the topic of #define vs. DEFINE...

I don't want to be antagonistic about this, but the point of my message was
that they are so dissimilar as to create _confusion_ in the C community if
compared.  I speak as one of the rare members of both the C and LISP com-
munities.  For example, Dylan's DEFINE can be used recursively, and cannot
be used to 'splice' into a list, etc.  It exists as part of the language
semantics, not syntax.

Perhaps most C programmers don't make this distinction.  One I work with,
here at a company where LISP is not used (or respected), did however feel
that C function definitions were at quite a different level than #defines.

C functions, BTW, are one case where the C compiler (actually the linker),
does correctly implement symbolic constants.

	-- Scot

P.S.  I didn't want to post this to the net for fear of being offencive, but
I really think I should since most of the people there don't think C is a
decent language, and this might give them a little more respect for the
language.  It's not that I think it's a good application programming language
[since it's not], but rather that no portable assembly language exists yet,
so 'C' for systems programming cannot be supplanted.  Unless assembly language
or machine language comes into vogue in a big way, that is.

Also, I thought it might be important if there were 'C' programmers reading
this list...