<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Framework of Programming Language Expressivity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lispcast.com/uncategorized/framework-of-programming-language-expressivity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lispcast.com/uncategorized/framework-of-programming-language-expressivity/</link>
	<description>passion for programming</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:35:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: A_flj_</title>
		<link>http://www.lispcast.com/uncategorized/framework-of-programming-language-expressivity/comment-page-1/#comment-45</link>
		<dc:creator>A_flj_</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 01:31:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://new.lispcast.com/?p=111#comment-45</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Idunno. It seems to me that your assumption that beyond a certain functional complexity Scheme allows you to write smaller programs providing the same functionality is based on the assumption that Java programmers don&#039;t properly design their code. This assumption, IMO, stems from you not knowing how Java projects are usually performed.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Java programmers do indeed lack a mechanism of macros, but nobody prevents them from designing highly reusable components/classes, which should make development of additional features easy. In fact, it&#039;s what most projects do: develop a relatively small and simple set of domain-specific classes, then build huge applications on top of the application-specific library. In fact, you can even include rhino or beanshell as a library in your app and drive your app from scripts.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Therefore I&#039;d very much like to see a real life example before I g ive any credit to your assumptions.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Idunno. It seems to me that your assumption that beyond a certain functional complexity Scheme allows you to write smaller programs providing the same functionality is based on the assumption that Java programmers don&#39;t properly design their code. This assumption, IMO, stems from you not knowing how Java projects are usually performed.<br /><br />Java programmers do indeed lack a mechanism of macros, but nobody prevents them from designing highly reusable components/classes, which should make development of additional features easy. In fact, it&#39;s what most projects do: develop a relatively small and simple set of domain-specific classes, then build huge applications on top of the application-specific library. In fact, you can even include rhino or beanshell as a library in your app and drive your app from scripts.<br /><br />Therefore I&#39;d very much like to see a real life example before I g ive any credit to your assumptions.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
