"has X so you don't need macros" is not equivalent to "has macros" (otherwise ne... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

finnw on Oct 31, 2012 | parent | context | favorite | on: Haskell in Production: The good, the bad, and the ...

"has X so you don't need macros" is not equivalent to "has macros" (otherwise nearly every language could claim to be "a lisp.")

TylerE on Oct 31, 2012 [–]

But this isn't "because of X".

Anything you can write as a macro in lisp you can write as a normal function in haskell, without special gymnastics.

finnw on Oct 31, 2012 | [–]

Not quite everything. Macros can define new types, for example.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact