[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dylan Constants
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Dylan Constants
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Scot Dyer)
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 92 16:04:30 PDT
- Cc: Scott_Fahlman@SEF1.SLISP.CS.CMU.EDU, info-dylan@CAMBRIDGE.APPLE.COM
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.
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