Content deleted Content added
Jarl Friis (talk | contribs) |
→Should Lisp get its own section?: new section |
||
Line 93:
I think there should be reference to the article about [[monkey patching]] and vica versa. [[Monkey patching]] is a structured and formalised way to do self-modifying code in a an interpreted language. At least [[Monkey patching]] could be listed in "See also". What do you think? --[[User:Jarl Friis|Jarl]] ([[User talk:Jarl Friis|talk]]) 06:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
== Should Lisp get its own section? ==
Lisp has self-modifying code unlike any of the other languages, in fact, a running lisp programming modifies itself the whole time. I would say that Lisp is unique in how it modifies its own code because Lisp has no boundary between data and code, data is stored in Linked lists in lisp, instructions are data with the head being the operation and the tail a list to operate on. Just 'dumping' data in the main runtime is interpreted as executing it accordingly that pattern. In that sense, unlike JavaScript or Perl, Lisp doesn't modify its own syntax or evaluates a string as if it were an expression. Lisp has no syntax, S-expressions are just a convention to encode linked lists, but anything that encode linked lists can create isomorph programs to those in S-expressions.
Therefore, if it's okay with you people I'd like to add a section on Lisp families because they treat self-modifying code in a unique way. [[User:Rajakhr|Rajakhr]] ([[User talk:Rajakhr|talk]]) 22:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
| |||