Re: [Caml-list] PPX is harmful to our community in the long term

[Robert Muller <robert.muller2@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3111 bytes --]

The VAX Fortran compiler was a state-of-the-art compiler in its day. The
compiler was implemented in BLISS, a systems programming language with a
powerful macro system. Each compiler developer invariably authored their
own macros to suit their styles. So when one wandered into foreign bits of
the compiler they appeared to be written in different dialects of BLISS. We
had the dialects of the present developers as well as legacy dialects from
years of earlier developers. It was not for nothing that our development
machine was called "Babel".
New hires faced a steeper slope in mastering the compiler than they would
have had there been no macros. I concluded that macros, at least managed in
that style, were injurious to the engineering process.
- Bob Muller


On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Hongbo Zhang (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX) <
hzhang295@bloomberg.net> wrote:

> Yes, I agree it's useful , and that's why I wrote hundreds of thousands of
> lines of code in syntactic meta-programming (camlp4, fan, ppx)
> But in the end of day, the conclusion is the cost is just so huge that it
> should not be widely used, at least , it should not be *leaked* to end
> users. ( I remember I had a conversation with the original maintainer of
> camlp4, Nicolas, about 5 years ago, he had similar ideas with me)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Serge Sivkov <ssp.mryau@gmail.com>
> To: caml-list@inria.fr
> At: 22-Apr-2017 08:49:40
>
> Hence, my two cents: PPX has problems in cross-compilation use cases, but
> I suppose something like new tag in META can reslove this issue.
> As for me, just ppx_deriving* by whitequark is yet one example of
> usefullness of PPX.
>
> WBR, ssp
>
> 2017-04-22 5:10 GMT+06:00 Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias <e@x80.org>:
>
>> "Hongbo Zhang (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX)" <hzhang295@bloomberg.net> writes:
>>
>> > Yes, that's exactly what I suggested in the beginning!
>>
>> Maybe I interpret the word "harmful" differently, but IMVHO I have to
>> strongly disagree with your choice of subject in the original mail.
>>
>> Not only PPX has not been harmful for me, but it has been a life-saver
>> tool that has enabled significant progress towards more productive
>> research.
>>
>> "Hongbo Zhang (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX)" <hzhang295@bloomberg.net> writes:
>>
>> > calling it 'madness' is disrespectful
>>
>> Personally, I fully subscribe Yaron's message and I see nothing
>> disrespectful in suggesting that abandoning syntactic abstractions is a
>> very bad idea.
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>>  "the OCaml library developer should avoid PPX as much as you can",
>>
>> but if you meant:
>>
>>  "PPX seems quite unstable these days, I wonder how could we improve
>>   long-term stability?"
>>
>> I'd have to admit that message didn't reach to me.
>>
>> Best regards!
>> Emilio
>>
>> --
>> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
>> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
>> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
>> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5727 bytes --]