RE: Var-free programming (slightly off-topic)

["Christopher Barber" <address@hidden>]

> I have one definition. A LL is one that you can design &
> implement with not
> too much work -- two, three days to get a really good implementation. That
> means you can afford to build a purpose-directed language for a
> single task
> or a small set of tasks. Got a problem? Build a language... then
> solve your
> problem.
>
> Scheme & Lisp macros are the only existing technology that provides this.
> Thus the talks that Shriram & I gave.

Clearly by this definition, Scheme and Lisp are not themselves lightweight
languages.  Furthermore, if your embedded macro language makes use of any
features of Scheme or Lisp, then wouldn't it then also have to be considered
non-lightweight?  I think this definition is too narrow to be interesting.

- Christopher