From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42510BC8B for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:46:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from swordfish.cs.caltech.edu (swordfish.cs.caltech.edu [131.215.44.124]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1E1kTFC008865 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:46:29 +0100 Received: from orchestra.cs.caltech.edu (orchestra.cs.caltech.edu [131.215.44.20]) by swordfish.cs.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA400DF28E; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:46:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by orchestra.cs.caltech.edu (Postfix, from userid 2554) id EF42F9BDAB; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:46:24 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Vanier To: michael.walter@gmail.com Cc: Thomas.Fischbacher@physik.uni-muenchen.de, dheck@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de, caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-reply-to: <877e9a170502131711122bd34e@mail.gmail.com> (message from Michael Walter on Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:11:54 -0500) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The boon of static type checking References: <877e9a17050206221653d14456@mail.gmail.com> <20050213112630.73930e19@hobbes> <877e9a1705021312525337a907@mail.gmail.com> <877e9a1705021314512ff095b9@mail.gmail.com> <877e9a1705021316114d4e10f0@mail.gmail.com> <877e9a170502131711122bd34e@mail.gmail.com> Message-Id: <20050214014624.EF42F9BDAB@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:46:24 -0800 (PST) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 421002F5.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; vanier:01 mvanier:01 caml-list:01 compiler:01 escapes:01 syntax:01 syntax:01 expansions:01 aficionados:01 metaocaml:01 haskell:01 lisp:01 lisp:01 checking:01 caltech:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: > Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:11:54 -0500 > From: Michael Walter > > > > Of course, if you decide to use S-expressions primarily as a compiler > > > target that's an entirely different issue (to bad that this path > > > hasn't been explored that much, besides maybe Dylan). > > > > That's how it's supposed to be. > But that is not what it *is* like in > 95% of "the Lisp world". See my > last mail - the typical Lisper seldomly/never "escapes" S expressions, > and I strongly believe this is not because S expressions are the > "best" syntax. > > Michael > [Way off-topic -- sorry!] But S-expressions are arguably the best syntax for writing macro expansions. Since an S-expression is trivially parseable and dispatches on its first symbol it's very easy to write source code transformations in lisp, and lispers seem to value this much more than aficionados of other languages. More recent efforts like metaocaml and template Haskell (not to mention camlp4 and C++ templates) suggest that the notion that source code transformations can be a useful part of programming is getting more popular. Mike