[Jach]

If that's your main downside, that's pretty good, since clunkiness is in many ways fixable. Personally with standard CL I like to use property lists with keywords, so a "map literal" is just (list :a 3 :b 'other). It's fine when the map is small. The getter is just getf, setting is the usual setf around the getter. There's a cute way to loop by #'cddr for a key-and-value loop, though Alexandria (a very common utility library) has some useful utils for looping/removing/converting plists as well.

If typing out "(list ...)" is annoying, it's a few lines of code to let you type {:a 3 :b 4} instead, like Clojure. And the result of that can be a plist, or a hash table, or again like Clojure one of the handful of immutable map structures available. You can also easily make the native hash tables print themselves out with the curly bracket syntax.

(On the speed front, you might be amused by https://renato.athaydes.com/posts/how-to-write-slow-rust-cod... But separately, when you want to speed up Lisp (with SBCL) even more than default, it's rather fun to be able to run disassemble on your function and see what it's doing at the assembly level, and turn up optimization hints and have the compiler start telling you (even on the individual function level) about where it has to use e.g. generic addition instead of a faster assembly instruction because it can't prove type info and you'll have to tell it/fix your code. It can tell you about dead code it removed. You can define stack-allocation if needed. Simple benchmarking that also includes processor cycles and memory allocated is available immediately with the built-in time macro...)

[phlakaton]

The cost of a macro is not measured in lines of code. It's measured in things like adoption, clarity, and debuggability.

[Jach]

Things have costs, what's your underlying point? That one shouldn't create such a macro, even if it's a one-liner, because of unquantified costs or concerns...?

Singling out individual macros for "cost" analysis this way is very weird to me. I disagree entirely. Everything has costs, not just macros, and if you're doing an analysis you need to include the costs of not having the thing (i.e. the benefits of having it). Anyway whether it's a reader macro, compiler macro, or normal function, lines of code is actually a great proxy measure to all sorts of things, even if it can be an abused measure. When compared to other more complex metrics like McCabe's cyclomatic complexity, or Halstead’s Software Science metrics (which uses redundancy of variable names to try and quantify something like clarity and debuggability), the correlations with simple lines of code are high. (See for instance https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/making-software/9780596... which you can find a full pdf of in the usual places.) But the correlations aren't 1, and indeed there's an important caveat against making programs too short. Though a value you didn't mention which I think can factor into cost is one of "power", where shorter programs (and languages that enable them) are generally seen as more powerful, at least for that particular area of expression. Shorter programs is one of the benefits of higher level languages. And besides power, I do think fewer lines of code most often corresponds to superior clarity and debuggability (and of course fewer bugs overall, as other studies will tell you), even if code golfing can take it too far.

I wouldn't put much value in any cost due to a lack of adoption, because as soon as you do that, you've given yourself a nice argument to drop Lisp entirely and switch to Java or another top-5 language. Maybe if you can quantify this cost, I'll give it more thought. It also seems rather unfair in the context of CL, because the way adoption of say new language features often happens in other ecosystems is by force, but Lisp has a static standard, so adoption otherwise means adoption of libraries or frameworks where incidentally some macros come along for the ride. e.g. I think easy-route's defroute is widely adopted for users of hunchentoot, but will never be for CL users in general because it's only relevant for webdev. And fare's favorite macro, nest, is part of uiop and so basically part of every CL out there out of the box -- how's that for availability if not adoption -- but I think its adoption is and will remain rather small, because the problem it solves can be solved in multiple ways (my favorite: just use more functions) and the most egregious cases of attacking the right margin don't come up all that often. Incidentally, it's another case in point on lines of code, the CL implementation is a one liner and easy to understand (and like all macros rather easy to test/verify with macroexpand) but the Scheme implementation is a bit more sophisticated: https://fare.livejournal.com/189741.html

What's your cost estimate on a simple version of the {} macro shown in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1611453 ? One could write it differently, but it's actually pretty robust to things like duplicate keys or leaving keys out, it's clear, and the use of a helper function aids debuggability (popularized most in call-with-* macro expansions). However, I would not use it as-is with that implementation, because it suffers from the same flaw as Lisp's quote-lists '(1 2 3) and array reader macro #(1 2 3) that keep me from using either of those most of the time as well. (For passerby readers, the flaw is that if you have an element like "(1+ 3)", that unevaluated list itself is the value, rather than the computation it's expressing. It's ugly to quasiquote and unquote what are meant to be data structure literals, so I just use the list/vector functions. That macro can be fixed on this though by changing the "hash `,(read-..." text to "hash (list ,@(read-...)". I'd also change the hash table key test.)

A basically identical version at the top most level is here https://github.com/mikelevins/folio2/blob/master/src/maps-sy... that turns the map into an fset immutable map instead, minor changes would let you avoid needing to use folio2's "as" function.

[phlakaton]

Please try to respond to my argument without 1) straw-manning it, 2) or reading a bunch into it that isn't there.

You made a point about the macro only costing a few lines of code. That is not a useful way to look at macros, as I can attest having written any number of short macros that I in retrospect probably shouldn't have written, and one or two ill-conceived attempts at DSLs.

Sometimes fewer lines of code is not better. Code golfing is not, in and of itself, a worthy engineering goal. The most important aims to abstraction are clarity and facility, and if you do not keep those in mind as you're shoving things into macros and subroutines and code-sharing between different parts of the codebase that should not be coupled, you are only going to lead you and your teammates to grief.

Things have costs. Recognize what the costs are. Use macros judiciously.

[Jach]

I started with my two questions not to strawman, but to find out if there was some underlying point or argument you had in mind that prompted you to make such a short reply in the first place. All I could read in it was not an argument, but a high level assertion, and not any sort of call to action. That's fine, I normally would have ignored it, but I felt like riffing on my disagreement with that assertion. To reiterate, I think you can reasonably measure cost through lines of code, even if that shouldn't be the only or primary metric, and I provided some outside-my-experience justifications, including one that suggests that an easy to measure metric like lines of code correlates with notoriously harder to measure metrics like the three things you stated. (If cost is to be measured by clarity -- how do you even measure clarity? Halstead provides one method, it's not the only one, but if we're going to use the word "measure", I prefer concrete and independently repeatable ways to get the same measurement value. Sometimes the measurement is just a senior person on a team saying something is unclear, often if you get another senior's opinion they'll say the same thing, but it'd be nice if we could do better.)

Now you've expanded yourself, thanks. I mostly agree. Quibble around size is "not a useful way" -- a larger macro is more likely to be more complex, difficult to understand, buggy, and harder to maintain, so it better be enabling a correspondingly large amount of utility. But it doesn't necessarily have to be complex, it could just be large but wrapping a lot of trivial boilerplate. DSL-enabling macros are often large but I don't think they justify themselves much of the time. And I've also regretted some one-line macros. Length can't be the only thing to look at, but it has a place. I'd much rather be on the hook for dealing with a short macro than a large one. Independent of size, I rather dislike how macros in general can break interactive development. What's true for macros is that they're not something to spray around willy-nilly, it's a lot less true to say the same about functions.

If you asked, I don't think I'd have answered that those two things are the most important aims to abstraction, but they're quite important for sure, and as you say the same problems can come with ill-made subroutines, not just macros. I agree overall with your last two paragraphs, and the call to action about recognizing costs and using macros judiciously. (Of course newbies will ask "how to be judicious?" but that's another discussion.)

[_19qg]

> simple version of the {} macro shown in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1611453

That's not implementing a literal (an object that can be read), but a short hand notation for constructor code. The idea of a literal is that it is an object created at read-time and not at runtime.

In Common Lisp every literal notation returns an object, when read -> at read-time. The {} example does not, because the read macro creates code and not a literal object of type hash-table. The code then needs to be executed to create an object -> which then happens at runtime.

The ANSI CL glossary says:

https://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/26_gl...

> literal adj. (of an object) referenced directly in a program rather than being computed by the program; that is, appearing as data in a quote form, or, if the object is a self-evaluating object, appearing as unquoted data. ``In the form (cons "one" '("two")), the expressions "one", ("two"), and "two" are literal objects.''

    CL-USER 4 > (read-from-string "1")
    1
    1

    CL-USER 5 > (read-from-string "(1 2 3)")   ; -> which needs quoting in code, since the list itself doubles in Lisp as an operator call
    (1 2 3)
    7

    CL-USER 6 > (read-from-string "1/2")
    1/2
    3

    CL-USER 7 > (read-from-string "\"123\"")
    "123"
    5

    CL-USER 8 > (read-from-string "#(1 2 3)")
    #(1 2 3)
    8

But the {} notation is not describing a literal, it creates code, when read, not an object of type hash-table.

    CL-USER 9 > (read-from-string "{:foo bar}")
    (LET ((HASH (MAKE-HASH-TABLE))) (SET-HASH-VALUES HASH (QUOTE (:FOO BAR))) HASH)
    10

This also means that (quote {:a 1}) generates a list and not a hash-table when evaluated. A literal can be quoted. The QUOTE operator prevents the object from being evaluated.

    CL-USER 13 > (quote {:a 1}) 
    (LET ((HASH (MAKE-HASH-TABLE))) (SET-HASH-VALUES HASH (QUOTE (:A 1))) HASH)

    CL-USER 14 > '(defun foo () "ab cd")
    (DEFUN FOO NIL "ab cd")

In above example the string is a literal object in the code.

    CL-USER 15 > '(defun foo () {:foo bar})
    (DEFUN FOO NIL (LET ((HASH (MAKE-HASH-TABLE))) (SET-HASH-VALUES HASH (QUOTE (:FOO BAR))) HASH))

In above example there is no hash-table embedded in the code. Instead each call to FOO will create a fresh new hash-table at runtime. That's not the meaning of a literal in Common Lisp.

[Jach]

Thanks for the clarification on the meaning of "literal" in Common Lisp, I'll try to keep that in mind in the future. My meaning was more in the sense of literals being some textual equivalent representation for a value. Whether or not computation behind the scenes happens at some particular time (read/compile/run) isn't too relevant. For example in Python, one could write:

    a = list()
    a.append(1)
    a.append(2)
    a.append(1+3)

You can call repr(a) to get the canonical string representation of the object. This is "[1, 2, 4]". Python's doc on repr says that for many object types, including most builtins, eval(repr(obj)) == obj. Indeed eval("[1, 2, 4]") == a. But what's more, Python supports a "literal" syntax, where you can type in source code, instead of those 4 lines:

    b = [1, 2, 1+3]

And b == a, despite this source not being exactly equal at the string-diff level to the repr() of either a or b. The fact that there was some computation of 1+3 that took place at some point, or in a's case that there were a few method calls, is irrelevant to the fact that the final (runtime) value of both a and b is [1, 2, 4]. That little bit of computation of the element is usually expected in other languages that have this sort of way to specify structured values, too, Lisp's behavior trips up newcomers (and Clojure's as well for simple lists, but not for vectors or maps).

Do you have any suggestions on how to talk about this "literal syntax" in another way that won't step on or cause confusion with the CL spec's definition?

[_19qg]

> Whether or not computation behind the scenes happens at some particular time (read/compile/run) isn't too relevant.

Actually it is relevant: is the object mutable? Are new objects created? What optimizations can a compiler do? Is it an object which is a part of the source code?

If we allow [1, 2, (+ 1 a)] in a function as a list notation, then we have two choices:

1) every invocation of [1, 2, (+ 1 a)] returns a new list.

2) every invocation of [1, 2, (+ 1 a)] returns a single list object, but modifies the last slot of the list. -> then the list needs to be mutable.

    (defun foo (a)
      [1, 2, (+ 1 a)])

Common Lisp in general assumes that in

    (defun foo (a)
     '(1 2 3))

it is undefined what exact effects the attempts to modify the quoted list (1 2 3) has. Additionally the elements are not evaluated. We have to assume that the quoted list (1 2 3) is a literal constant.

Thus FOO

* returns ONE object. It does not cons new lists at runtime.

* modifying the list may be not possible. A compiler might allocate such an object in a read-only memory segment (that would be a rate feature -> but it might happen on architectures like iOS where machine code is by default not mutable).

* attempts to modify the list may be detected.

SBCL:

    * (let ((a '(1 2 3))) (setf (car a) 4) a)
    ; in: LET ((A '(1 2 3)))
    ;     (SETF (CAR A) 4)
    ; 
    ; caught WARNING:
    ;   Destructive function SB-KERNEL:%RPLACA called on constant data: (1 2 3)
    ;   See also:
    ;     The ANSI Standard, Special Operator QUOTE
    ;     The ANSI Standard, Section 3.7.1
    ; 
    ; compilation unit finished
    ;   caught 1 WARNING condition
    (4 2 3)

* attempts to modify literal constants may modify coalesced lists

for example

    (defun foo ()
      (let ((a '(1 2 3))
            (b '(1 2 3)))
        (setf (car a) 10)
        (eql (car a) (car b))))

In above function, a file compiler might detect that similar lists are used and allocate only one object for both variables.

The value of (foo) can be T, NIL, a warning might be signalled or an error might be detected.

So Common Lisp really pushes the idea that in source code these literals should be treated as immutable constant objects, which are a part of the source code.

Even for structures: (defun bar () #S(PERSON :NAME "Joe" :AGE a)) -> A is not evaluated, BAR returns always the same object.

> Do you have any suggestions on how to talk about this "literal syntax" in another way that won't step on or cause confusion with the CL spec's definition?

Actually I was under the impression that "literal" in a programming language often means "constant object".

See for example string literals in C:

https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/STR30-C.+Do+no...

Though it's not surprising that language may assume different, more dynamic, semantics for compound objects like lists, vectors, hash tables or OOP objects. Especially for languages which are focused more on developer convenience, than on compiler optimizations. Common Lisp there does not provide an object notation with default component evaluation, but assumes that one uses functions for object creation in this case.

[Jach]

Yeah, again I meant irrelevant to those who share such a broader ("dynamic" is a fun turn of phrase) definition of "literal" as I was using, it's very relevant to CL. I thought of mentioning the CL undefined behavior around modification you brought up explicitly in the first comment as yet another reason I try to avoid using #() and quoted lists, but it seemed like too much of an aside in an already long aside. ;) But while in aside-mode, this behavior I really think is quite a bad kludge of the language, and possibly the best thing Clojure got right was its insistence on non-place-oriented values. But it is what it is.

Bringing up C is useful because I know a similar "literal" syntax has existed since C99 for structs, and is one of the footguns available to bring up if people start forgetting that C is not a subset of C++. Looks like they call it "compound literals": https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/compound_literal (And of course you can type expressions like y=1+4 that result in the struct having y=5.) And it also notes about possible string literal sharing. One of the best things Java got right was making strings immutable...