Re: Dynamic Language (grammar)

Voice in the desert: Quiet, isn't it, Martin Rodgers?


> "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming,
> is not worth knowing."
> --
> [Alan said lots of stuff, much of it contradictory. (He was my thesis
> advisor.) TCL actually does a rather good job of having a syntax that
> you can extend, even though everything is a string. It's worth a look.
> -John]


I've looked, and wasn't impressed. Perhaps because, as my sig.file
says, write code that writes code that writes code. You need tools
that can cleanly express multiple levels of evaluation to do that with
ease. See the books I mentioned earlier, or read my homepage.


While I see no contradiction in the Perlis quotes I gave, perhaps I
just picked two good ones. ;) They're certainly apposite here.
--
                        <URL:http://www.wildcard.demon.co.uk>
[You should look again, TCL does multiple levels of evaluation quite
cleanly, not unlike the way that Lisp does. It's almost as cool as
Trac. -John]

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.