[racket] letoverlambda

Three minutes ago, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> Sadly, his response only makes things worse.  He writes
> 
>   Some Scheme systems have theoretically advanced macro systems but
>   I believe the Common Lisp macro system is more suitable for
>   writing useful macros.
> 
> Eh?  How about a huge chunk of the cool things in Racket, from the
> class system to Typed Racket to Lazy Racket to FrTime?
> 
> He does not understand that a macro system that closes over bindings
> from other modules is a *fundamentally different thing* than a mere
> macro system.  It is hard to overstate this matter; it is foundational
> to what makes Racket a different language than Lisp or Scheme.

It's more than that -- the "theoretically advanced ... but" that he
uses shows off that he really considers the CL macros to be more
advanced.  And given that implementing the CL system is much easier
(and requires less code), my conclusion is that:

>   If you disagree and have examples to back up your opinions, I'd
>   love to hear from you.

is a vacuous request that can only result in flames.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!