>>38
ART is written in C++ and so is most of Android (including their libc).
Here's a very nice demonstration of how macros work in Scheme, hopefully it will give you a taste of what it might mean to have an "open future":
http://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/sk-automata-macros/paper.pdf
ART is C++ with C includes. So we are both right.
paper.pdf
This got me excited...
There is, however, a paucity of effective pedagogic examples of macro use.
Then this...
This paper presents a short, non-trivial example that implements a construct not already found in mainstream languages.
Yes! Finally!
But 14 pages later I find myself reading about what looks like a broken implementation of regex with a tail call. Not seeing the magic here.
Minsky does imply that Lisp has an open future while C, along with all other "algebraic" languages, is subject to strange limitations. Yes, he's sort of mumbling and searching for words, but this is what he says in the end.
Any language with an open implementation can be freely changed by the user at any time without waiting for a standards committee. A common example of this would be Python "monkey patching". Another would be something like avr-gcc or avr-libstdcxx.
But let's assume that this supposed freedom that Lisp offers really is due to having only 5 basic commands and no standards. This would be an example of negative freedom[0]. In other words, Lisp offers a freedom derived from lack of outside interference. Lisp does not provide positive freedom[1], or the power to act on one's free will. Collective action such as standards committees tend to foster positive freedom. Generally, those with positive freedom tend to have brighter futures in the real world.
I'm only bringing up necessity because my less specific questions were answered with vagaries like progn and eval.
Minsky was a computer scientist, so obviously he must have found this very exciting.
This is my main point. I'm a fan of Minsky. I've read his collection of essays and a couple of his more recent books. He had a wonderful and unique way of thinking. So what I'm asking here is why. Why did he find Lisp so exciting that he would claim it is essentially the only language with an open future? My questions have nothing to do with business advantage and everything to do with what Lisp can actually do in the real world that would excite a guy like Minsky to the point of making such claims. The only reason I'm discussing C is because Minsky brought it up. I have no particular affinity for C.
So was Minsky making his proclamation based on the existence of progn? I doubt it. Eval? Maybe, but I assume he's aware that eval exists in other languages. Macros? Again, maybe. The more likely scenario is that Minsky was not excited by a single feature of Lisp, but by what Lisp allowed him to actually accomplish in the real world. What were those real world accomplishments and how could they be done with Lisp and not with C or any other language?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
>>81
"C++ with C imports" is still C++. You clearly have no interest in understanding our position and instead just want to be "right", so why are you wasting our time?