Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
3 points by rocketnia 3239 days ago | link | parent

I'm reminded again of a post of mine I brought up a while ago, http://arclanguage.org/item?id=11684. [1] The only point I raise against fexprs there--and interpretation of quoted code in general--is that it gives up static optimization and verification. ^_^ This is part of why it took me a while to form a response initially; my main objection to your argument was that the assumption "when expressivity is more important to you than performance" wasn't black and white for me, so I wasn't sure it would be a relevant response.

So I'll probably be a bit wishy-washy in the following responses. Our opinions aren't actually in conflict; they're just motivated by different premises.

[1] The post I brought it up in is http://arclanguage.org/item?id=13325.

---

Am I incorrect in thinking that arc macros are a subset of fexprs in terms of expressiveness?

I think so. I think the one semantic difference is that you can redefine an fexpr and count on all the existing uses of it to work using the new definition. But that's only a positive. :-p

---

1. Lexical scoping now applies to macros, so you no longer have to use that do.foo pattern to avoid accidental macro-expansion (http://arclanguage.org/item?id=11688)*

The fix to this in Arc is pretty simple (http://arclanguage.org/item?id=13581). I don't see it as being an interpreted-versus-compiled issue.

---

2. Local and anonymous macros*

The most natural (IMO) way to add this to Arc would be to have the compiler pass around a complete local static environment, rather than just a list of the local variables. It could be as simple as replacing that list with an alist. Of course, then there'd need to be a 'w/mac form too.

I admit this solution adds complexity to the language core. That's issue #4, though. ^_^

---

3. Module system possibilities open up because you can now store callable macros in lists and tables

Yep, that's totally true. You can import such structures globally in either kind of language, especially if they support replacing the global environment so you don't clobber existing things (Penknife's approach), but local scope imports make the meanings of variables in their scope ambiguous until the import is performed at run time, and at that point, compile-time macros will have been missed.

Personally, I like knowing which variables I'm importing at the time I write the code, so even if I do want to locally import a bunch of variables all at once, perhaps for some macro, I find it tolerable to build a complete (with (a _!a b _!b c _!c) ...) form for that purpose. Alternatively I'd limit local imports to statically determinable sets of names (like forcing (w/import-from var-list foo ...) to use a predefined global variable 'var-list). Of course, these aren't as general. ^_^

--

4. The language implementation can become smaller and more hackable with the elimination of the macro-expander

That's also true. :) My opinion is that a smaller language implementation doesn't imply a more convenient language to use, even if it may be a more convenient language to maintain. If for some reason we want to compile some of our code (probably for performance, but also potentially for code generation), and the language already gives us a suitable framework to do that in, we don't have to build that framework ourselves. In fact, it's more convenient to simulate a simple framework (e.g. Arc) within a complicated one (e.g. Racket) than vice versa.