Is metaprogramming useful?

[Steve Horne]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:44:17 +0200, Georg Wrede
<georg.wrede at nospam.org> wrote:

>> The thing is that in the real world, most programmers need a
>> standard, familiar dialect which has all the everyday high level
>> tools available from the start. If OOP is an immediately useful
>> concept, programmers should be using OOP from day one, not learning
>> how to reinvent OOP from the basic building blocks. So, has anyone
>> created widely-used standard librarys for high level programming?
>
>The very point of Common Lisp is *precicely* what you wrote here!
>
>CL tries to be a practical language for people doing real-world 
>programming. (Sound familiar?) And they explcitly take distance to 
>Scheme, which they consider more Purist, Academic, and for 
>theoreticians. (The latter of course disagree, as usual.)

And this too may be a big clue to why me and Brad aren't making sense
to each other.

I somehow had the impression that Common Lisp was created for
standardisation reasons but at least as academic as any other dialect.
Possibly I read some stuff by your theoreticians who disagree at some
point.

Well, it's good to finally understand the nature of my ignorance - now
I can do something about it!

-- 
Remove 'wants' and 'nospam' from e-mail.