Meta-Erlang (was RE: Erlang vs Java revisited)
Ulf Wiger (AL/EAB)
Wed Sep 28 16:21:12 CEST 2005
For the next person itching to explore parse transforms:
One of the annoying things about parse transforms is that
you tend to have to cover the entire language even if you
just want to add a small tweak.
Last time I attempted one, I decided to try with syntax_tools.
It seemed to me as if it would be possible to write a small
and maintainable parse transform using syntax_tools, but
I got stuck on some details, and was then diverted.
Unfortunately, I have lost both my unfinished code and the
recollection of whatever it was I got stuck on. All I have
left to contribute is moral support. :)
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:]On Behalf Of Vlad Dumitrescu
> XX (LN/EAB)
> Sent: den 28 september 2005 15:35
> To: Richard A. O'Keefe;
> Subject: Meta-Erlang (was RE: Erlang vs Java revisited)
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > [mailto:]On Behalf Of
> Richard A. O'Keefe
> > Programs are data. My big complaint about older IDEs is that
> > they encouraged people to think of programs as exclusively
> > human-written, when our best hope of reliable software is
> to write as little of
> > it as possible.
> Is it the IDEs that did that?
> > What would Template Haskell look like in Erlang?
> Parse transforms are a kind of meta-programming, just not
> embedded in the language and quite clunky to use.
> Since the compiler is readily available to any Erlang
> program, including itself, and the abstract syntax is already
> expressed in Erlang terms, I suppose it would be relatively
> easy to add some syntactic sugar through a parse transform to
> enable "proper" meta-programing.
> The lack of static typing would mean that one should be
> extremely careful when writing and testing meta-programs, but
> probably just as much as when writing "normal" parse transforms.
> I think it would be a very interesting area to explore. If
> only I could find the time...
> best regards,
More information about the erlang-questions