Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Replacing XML with YAML will make it much more clear and much more shorter.

Concept of bindings (of symbols to values) and lexical scope (frames of the environment) must be described.

DSLs must be introduced to show how a list structure and uniform function application syntax glue everything together.

The much better advice - read SICP for Christ's sake.) People who wrote it spend much more time thinking what ideas to illustrate, in which order and why.

Then watch the Lectures, to feel the bliss.)

The true piece of mind comes after you finish reading On Lisp and then the contents of arc3.tar

Before that it is still just as being blinded and puzzled by a sudden flash of premature enlightenment.)



Graham's On Lisp as free PDF: http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/paulgraham/onlisp.pdf

Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs as free HTML: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html



Yes, XML reminds the terrible XSL experience; YAML would be pythonesque.

1. To the beginners, we need to explain; why code/data unity opens up broad possibilities and separation is simplistic. Otherwise some people claim that the best LISP DSL you ll write, will end up separating your data from your code, and tell you the virtues of von Neumann architecture.

2. Also the macro expansion time, and run time separation for non-interpreted LISP seems to be a restriction; mainly if all macros are to be defined at design time and expanded at macro expansion time, the advantages of macros seem to be limited against languages without macros. Namely, macros seem to be a way to modularize code by generalizing, and simpler languages may do it with text editing and module/source code organization features.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: