Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 1
    Right there at the top of the related questions is Why aren't macros included in most modern programming languages?; the accepted answer to that question addresses "why are most of the mainstream languages parsed rather than macro?" Commented Mar 10, 2012 at 14:10
  • @AidanCully: I can't say I agree with that. The question linked answers the reason macros are not used as part of parsed typed languages. In particular, the questions I posed do show that many shell languages are effectively macro, and they work (seemingly). Again, my question is what is lost (and what is gained) by creating an untyped language based on textual rewriting. For a special case, think why bash works despite being not parsed typed. Commented Mar 11, 2012 at 16:26
  • @MuhammadAlkarouri Re-opened, thanks for taking the time to clarify how your question is different than the duplicate. Commented Mar 12, 2012 at 9:18
  • To answer "What are the design decisions (or compromises) needed to create a macro programming language? ", To get good answers, you need to tell us WHY do you need create a new language. The 'why' part would influence the answer. Commented Apr 11, 2012 at 12:30