note
demerphq
<!--
<p><em></em></p>
<code></code>
<i></i>
<b></b>
[ ]
-->
<p>
Macros are used in many languages to resolve issues that the language for one reason or another doesnt address directly, to fill in the cracks so to speak. I dont see why a language that has appropriate other features necessarily needs a defined macro mechanism. Some of the more common uses for macros are: Templating, Inlining and Conditional Compilation. If a language provides other means of accomplishing these tasks then I see no reason for the language to define a macro language. OTOH, if a language doesnt provide these features, then any arbitrary macro preprocessor will provide then if needed. And when I say any arbitrary macro preprocessor I mean anything from perl to borrowing the C preprocessor for the job.</p>
<p>
Which kind of leads me to my main point. Perl doesnt need a macro language because it is a better macro preprocessor than anything else out there all by itself. With closures and eval, source code filters and funky things like BEGIN/INIT blocks and friends, Perl doesnt need anything that a macro preprocessor can provide.
</p>
<p>
Anybody who thinks that having a macro facility indicates that a L is FSP obviously hasn't noticed VB's macros.
</p>
<br />
---
<br />
demerphq<br />
<br />
<sub><[Elian]> And I do take a kind of perverse pleasure in having an OO assembly language...
<!--
<hr />
<p>
<strong>• Update: </strong><br />
</p>
-->
</sub>
<br />
265084
265084