What is the point of define-syntax if define-macro exists? Sure, the pattern matching of syntax-rules is fun and all but it can easily be implemented on top of normal macros too.
I think that syntax-based macros suck, they add useless complexity without giving anything back.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-12 23:40
You get hygiene for free without messing with gensyms.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-13 4:28
>>2 Well, for ``free''. Complexity is a cost as well.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-13 7:37
>>3 but it adds complexity to the compiler, not to your program. I'd argue that pattern-matching macros are easier to read than a hand-rolled implementation over normal macros, so it's not a cost specificly for your program
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-13 10:32
get hygiene for free
Lispers don't know what hygiene is...
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-13 11:41
>>2 Sometimes you don't want hygiene, but when you do it is trivial anyway.
>>4 It adds unnecessary complexity to the whole language, something which is actually bad.
>>5 SUSSMAN looks pretty suave and fresh for his age, though.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-18 5:45
>>1 here, I suck dicks. syntax-case is now my new wife. Heck, you don't even need syntax-case, you can just do (define-syntax penis (lambda (stx) ...)) and play with that.