🚀 go-pugleaf

tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (Thomas M. Breuel) wrote:

> Too bad that languages like SML (and, moreso, Haskell) have adopted
> such a comparatively complex syntax. Writing programs to manipulate
> programs is much easier in Lisp, due to the obvious correspondence
> between external and internal representation and a standard
> interface to the compiler/type facilities (in the form of macros and
> type predicates).

I'm not sure that languages should encourage such a reflective
approach.  Surely it is better to maintain a clear division between
the `levels' of a compiler system in order to retain semantic
simplicity.  As I see it, it's the semantic simplicity and strong type
enforcement that make developing in a functional programming language
so much more productive.

On a practical note: Introducing reflection of the sort you mention
makes it impossible (or at least difficult) to deliver applications
separate from the compiler.  When your compiler is as complex as a
truly standard ML compiler must be, this is a serious problem.

I agree, however, that the syntax of Standard ML is too complicated.
In fact, it requires infinite lookahead to parse Standard ML (New
Jersey and Poly/ML don't implement it).  This is a shame after so much
effort has gone into the semantics.
---
Richard Brooksby <richard@harlqn.co.uk>
ML Project / Symbolic Processing Division / Harlequin
+44 223 872522