Datasets:

thefcraft
/

gentoomen-lib

Tasks:

Text Generation

Languages:

English

Dataset card Files Files and versions

xet

Community

gentoomen-lib / Programming /Lisp /Lisp Mess /Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html

thefcraft

Upload folder using huggingface_hub

7a045c8 verified over 1 year ago

raw

history blame contribute delete

60.6 kB

	<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
	<html><head><title>defmacro - The Nature of Lisp</title>




	</head><body>
	<h1>The Nature of Lisp</h1><p> Found at <a href="http://www.defmacro.org">www.defmacro.org</p>




	<ul>
	<li><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#part_1">Introduction</a></li>
	<li><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#part_2">XML Reloaded</a></li>
	<li><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#part_3">Ant Reloaded</a></li>
	<li><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#part_4">Why XML?</a></li>
	<li><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#part_5">Almost Lisp</a></li>
	<li><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#part_6">A Better XML</a></li>
	<li><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#part_7">C Macros Reloaded</a></li>
	<li><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#part_8">Hello, Lisp!</a></li>
	<li><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#part_9">Lisp Macros</a></li>
	<li><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#part_10">Domain Specific Languages</a></li>
	<li><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#part_11">What's next?</a></li>
	<li><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#part_12">Comments?</a></li>
	</ul>



	<div class="date">Monday, May 8, 2006</div>

	<h2><a id="part_1">Introduction</a></h2>
	<p class="first">When
	I first stumbled into Lisp advocacy on various corners of the web I was
	already an experienced programmer. At that point I had grokked what
	seemed at the time a wide range of programming languages. I was proud
	to have the usual suspects (C++, Java, C#, etc.) on my service record
	and was under impression that I knew everything there is to know about
	programming languages. I couldn't have possibly been more wrong.</p>
	<p>My initial
	attempt to learn Lisp came to a crashing halt as soon as I saw some
	sample code. I suppose the same thought ran through my mind that ran
	through thousands of other minds who were ever in my shoes: "Why on
	Earth would anyone want to use a language with such horrific syntax?!"
	I couldn't be bothered to learn a language if its creators couldn't be
	bothered to give it a pleasant syntax. After all, I was almost blinded
	by the infamous Lisp parentheses!</p>
	<p>The
	moment I regained my sight I communicated my frustrations to some
	members of the Lisp sect. Almost immediately I was bombarded by a
	standard set of responses: Lisp's parentheses are only a superficial
	matter, Lisp has a huge benefit of code and data being expressed in the
	same manner (which, obviously, is a huge improvement over XML), Lisp
	has tremendously powerful metaprogramming facilities that allow
	programs to write code and modify themselves, Lisp allows for creation
	of mini-languages specific to the problem at hand, Lisp blurs the
	distinction between run time and compile time, Lisp, Lisp, Lisp... The
	list was very impressive. Needless to say none of it made sense. Nobody
	could illustrate the usefulness of these features with specific
	examples because these techniques are supposedly only useful in large
	software systems. After many hours of debating that conventional
	programming languages do the job just fine, I gave up. I wasn't about
	to invest months into learning a language with a terrible syntax in
	order to understand obscure features that had no useful examples. My
	time has not yet come.</p>
	<p>For
	many months the Lisp advocates pressed on. I was baffled. Many
	extremely intelligent people I knew and had much respect for were
	praising Lisp with almost religious dedication. There had to be
	something there, something I couldn't afford not to get my hands on!
	Eventually my thirst for knowledge won me over. I took the plunge, bit
	the bullet, got my hands dirty, and began months of mind bending
	exercises. It was a journey on an endless lake of frustration. I turned
	my mind inside out, rinsed it, and put it back in place. I went through
	seven rings of hell and came back. And then I got it.</p>
	<p>The
	enlightenment came instantaneously. One moment I understood nothing,
	and the next moment everything clicked into place. I've achieved
	nirvana. Dozens of times I heard Eric Raymond's statement quoted by
	different people: "Lisp is worth learning for the profound
	enlightenment experience you will have when you finally get it; that
	experience will make you a better programmer for the rest of your days,
	even if you never actually use Lisp itself a lot." I never understood
	this statement. I never believed it could be true. And finally, after
	all the pain, it made sense! There was more truth to it than I ever
	could have imagined. I've achieved an almost divine state of mind, an
	instantaneous enlightenment experience that turned my view of computer
	science on its head in less than a single second.</p>
	<p>That very second I became a member of
	the Lisp cult. I felt something a ninjitsu master must feel: I had to
	spread my newfound knowledge to at least ten lost souls in the course
	of my lifetime. I took the usual path. I was rehashing the same
	arguments that were given to me for years (only now they actually made
	sense!), hoping to convert unsuspecting bystanders. It didn't work. My
	persistence sparked a few people's interest but their curiosity
	dwindled at the mere sight of sample Lisp code. Perhaps years of
	advocacy would forge a few new Lispers, but I wasn't satisfied. There
	had to be a better way.</p>
	<p>I
	gave the matter careful thought. Is there something inherently hard
	about Lisp that prevents very intelligent, experienced programmers from
	understanding it? No, there isn't. After all, I got it, and if I can do
	it, anybody can. Then what is it that makes Lisp so hard to understand?
	The answer, as such things usually do, came unexpectedly. Of course!
	Teaching anybody anything involves building advanced concepts on top of
	concepts they already understand! If the process is made interesting
	and the matter is explained properly the new concepts become as
	intuitive as the original building blocks that aided their
	understanding. That was the problem! Metaprogramming, code and data in
	one representation, self-modifying programs, domain specific
	mini-languages, none of the explanations for these concepts referenced
	familiar territory. How could I expect anyone to understand them! No
	wonder people wanted specific examples. I could as well have been
	speaking in Martian!</p>
	<p>I
	shared my ideas with fellow Lispers. "Well, of course these concepts
	aren't explained in terms of familiar territory", they said. "They are
	so different, they're unlike anything these people have learned
	before." This was a poor excuse. "I do not believe this to be true", I
	said. The response was unanimous: "Why don't you give it a try?" So I
	did. This article is a product of my efforts. It is my attempt to
	explain Lisp in familiar, intuitive concepts. I urge brave souls to
	read on. Grab your favorite drink. Take a deep breath. Prepare to be
	blown away. Oh, and may the Force be with you.</p>
	<h2><a id="part_2">XML Reloaded</a></h2>
	<p class="first">A
	thousand mile journey starts with a single step. A journey to
	enlightenment is no exception and our first step just happens to be
	XML. What more could possibly be said about XML that hasn't already
	been said? It turns out, quite a bit. While there's nothing
	particularly interesting about XML itself, its relationship to Lisp is
	fascinating. XML is the all too familiar concept that Lisp advocates
	need so much. It is our bridge to conveying understanding to regular
	programmers. So let's revive the dead horse, take out the stick, and
	venture into XML wilderness that no one dared venture into before us.
	It's time to see the all too familiar moon from the other side.</p>
	<p>Superficially XML is nothing more than
	a standardized syntax used to express arbitrary hierarchical data in
	human readable form. To-do lists, web pages, medical records, auto
	insurance claims, configuration files are all examples of potential XML
	use. Let's use a simple to-do list as an example (in a couple of
	sections you'll see it in a whole new light):</p>
	<pre><todo name="housework">
	<item priority="high">Clean the house.</item>
	<item priority="medium">Wash the dishes.</item>
	<item priority="medium">Buy more soap.</item>
	</todo>
	</pre>
	<p>What happens if we unleash our favorite XML parser on
	this to-do list? Once the data is parsed, how is it represented in
	memory? The most natural representation is, of course, a tree - a
	perfect data structure for hierarchical data. After all is said and
	done, XML is really just a tree serialized to a human readable form.
	Anything that can be represented in a tree can be represented in XML
	and vice versa. I hope you understand this idea. It's very important
	for what's coming next.</p>
	<p>Let's
	take this a little further. What other type of data is often
	represented as a tree? At this point the list is as good as infinite so
	I'll give you a hint at what I'm getting at - try to remember your old
	compiler course. If you have a vague recollection that source code is
	stored in a tree after it's parsed, you're on the right track. Any
	compiler inevitably parses the source code into an abstract syntax
	tree. This isn't surprising since source code is hierarchical:
	functions contain arguments and blocks of code. Blocks of code contain
	expressions and statements. Expressions contain variables and
	operators. And so it goes.</p>
	<p>Let's
	apply our corollary that any tree can easily be serialized into XML to
	this idea. If all source code is eventually represented as a tree, and
	any tree can be serialized into XML, then all source code can be
	converted to XML, right? Let's illustrate this interesting property by
	a simple example. Consider the function below:</p>
	<pre>
	int add(int arg1, int arg2)
	{
	return arg1 + arg2;
	}
	</pre>
	<p>Can you convert this function definition to its XML
	equivalent? Turns out, it's reasonably simple. Naturally there are many
	ways to do this. Here is one way the resulting XML can look like:</p>
	<pre><define-function return-type="int" name="add">
	<arguments>
	<argument type="int">arg1</argument>
	<argument type="int">arg2</argument>
	</arguments>
	<body>
	<return>
	<add value1="arg1" value2="arg2" />
	</return>
	</body>
	</define>
	</pre>
	<p>We can go through this relatively simple exercise with
	any language. We can turn any source code into XML, and we can
	transform the resulting XML back to original source code. We can write
	a converter that turns Java into XML and a converter that turns XML
	back to Java. We could do the same for C++. (In case you're wondering
	if anyone is crazy enough to do it, take a look at <a href="http://www.gccxml.org/">GCC-XML</a>).
	Furthermore, for languages that share common features but use different
	syntax (which to some extent is true about most mainstream languages)
	we could convert source code from one language to another using XML as
	an intermediary representation. We could use our Java2XML converter to
	convert a Java program to XML. We could then run an XML2CPP converter
	on the resulting XML and turn it into C++ code. With any luck (if we
	avoid using features of Java that don't exist in C++) we'll get a
	working C++ program. Neat, eh?</p>
	<p>All
	this effectively means that we can use XML for generic storage of
	source code. We'd be able to create a whole class of programming
	languages that use uniform syntax, as well as write transformers that
	convert existing source code to XML. If we were to actually adopt this
	idea, compilers for different languages wouldn't need to implement
	parsers for their specific grammars - they'd simply use an XML parser
	to turn XML directly into an abstract syntax tree.</p>
	<p>By
	now you're probably wondering why I've embarked on the XML crusade and
	what it has to do with Lisp (after all, Lisp was created about thirty
	years before XML). I promise that everything will become clear soon
	enough. But before we take our second step, let's go through a small
	philosophical exercise. Take a good look at the XML version of our
	"add" function above. How would you classify it? Is it data or code? If
	you think about it for a moment you'll realize that there are good
	reasons to put this XML snippet into both categories. It's XML and it's
	just information encoded in a standardized format. We've already
	determined that it can be generated from a tree data structure in
	memory (that's effectively what GCC-XML does). It's lying around in a
	file with no apparent way to execute it. We can parse it into a tree of
	XML nodes and do various transformations on it. It's data. But wait a
	moment! When all is said and done it's the same "add" function written
	with a different syntax, right? Once parsed, its tree could be fed into
	a compiler and we could execute it. We could easily write a small
	interpreter for this XML code and we could execute it directly.
	Alternatively, we could transform it into Java or C++ code, compile it,
	and run it. It's code.</p>
	<p>So,
	where are we? Looks like we've just arrived to an interesting point. A
	concept that has traditionally been so hard to understand is now
	amazingly simple and intuitive. Code is also always data! Does it mean
	that data is also always code? As crazy as this sounds this very well
	might be the case. Remember how I promised that you'll see our to-do
	list in a whole new light? Let me reiterate on that promise. But we
	aren't ready to discuss this just yet. For now let's continue walking
	down our path.</p>
	<p>A
	little earlier I mentioned that we could easily write an interpreter to
	execute our XML snippet of the add function. Of course this sounds like
	a purely theoretical exercise. Who in their right mind would want to do
	that for practical purposes? Well, it turns out quite a few people
	would disagree. You've likely encountered and used their work at least
	once in your career, too. Do I have you out on the edge of your seat?
	If so, let's move on!</p>
	<h2><a id="part_3">Ant Reloaded</a></h2>
	<p class="first">Now
	that we've made the trip to the dark side of the moon, let's not leave
	quite yet. We may still learn something by exploring it a little more,
	so let's take another step. We begin by closing our eyes and
	remembering a cold rainy night in the winter of 2000. A prominent
	developer by the name of James Duncan Davidson<sup><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#note-james">1</a></sup> was hacking his way through
	<a href="http://tomcat.apache.org/">Tomcat</a> servlet container. As the time came to build the changes he carefully saved all his files
	and ran <em>make</em>.
	Errors. Lots of errors. Something was wrong. After careful examination
	James exclaimed: "Is my command not executing because I have a space in
	front of my tab?!" Indeed, this was the problem. Again. James has had
	enough. He could sense the full moon through the clouds and it made him
	adventurous. He created a fresh Java project and quickly hacked
	together a simple but surprisingly useful utility. This spark of genius
	used Java property files for information on how to build the project.
	James could now write the equivalent of the makefile in a nice format
	without worrying about the damned spaces ever again. His utility did
	all the hard work by interpreting the property file and taking
	appropriate actions to build the project. It was neat. Another Neat
	Tool. <a href="http://ant.apache.org/">Ant</a>.</p>
	<p>After
	using Ant to build Tomcat for a few months it became clear that Java
	property files are not sufficient to express complicated build
	instructions. Files needed to be checked out, copied, compiled, sent to
	another machine, and unit tested. In case of failure e-mails needed to
	be sent out to appropriate people. In case of success "Bad to the Bone"
	needed to be played at the highest possible volume. At the end of the
	track volume had to be restored to its original level. Yes, Java
	property files didn't cut it anymore. James needed a more flexible
	solution. He didn't feel like writing his own parser (especially since
	he wanted an industry standard solution). XML seemed like a reasonable
	alternative. In a couple of days Ant was ported to XML. It was the best
	thing since sliced bread.</p>
	<p>So how does Ant work? It's pretty simple. It
	takes an XML file with specific build instructions (you decide if
	they're data or code) and interprets them by running specialized Java
	code for each XML element. It's actually much simpler than it sounds. A
	simple XML instruction like the one below causes a Java class with an
	equivalent name to be loaded and its code to be executed.</p>
	<pre><copy todir="../new/dir">
	<fileset dir="src_dir"/>
	</copy>
	</pre>
	<p>The snippet above copies a source directory to a
	destination directory. Ant locates a "copy" task (a Java class,
	really), sets appropriate parameters (todir and fileset) by calling
	appropriate Java methods and then executes the task. Ant comes with a
	set of core tasks and anyone can extend it with tasks of their own
	simply by writing Java classes that follow certain conventions. Ant
	finds these classes and executes them whenever XML elements with
	appropriate names are encountered. Pretty simple. Effectively Ant
	accomplishes what we were talking about in the previous section: it
	acts as an interpreter for a language that uses XML as its syntax by
	translating XML elements to appropriate Java instructions. We could
	write an "add" task and have Ant execute it when it encounters the XML
	snippet for addition presented in the previous section! Considering
	that Ant is an extremely popular project, the ideas presented in the
	previous section start looking more sane. After all, they're being used
	every day in what probably amounts to thousands of companies!</p>
	<p>So far I've said nothing about
	why Ant actually goes through all the trouble of interpreting XML.
	Don't try to look for the answer on its website either - you'll find
	nothing of value. Nothing relevant to our discussion, anyway. Let's
	take another step. It's time to find out why.</p>
	<h2><a id="part_4">Why XML?</a></h2>
	<p class="first">Sometimes right decisions are made without full conscious
	understanding of all the issues involved. I'm not sure if James
	knew why he chose XML - it was likely a subconscious decision.
	At the very least, the reasons I saw on Ant's website for using
	XML are all the wrong reasons. It appears that the main concerns
	revolved around portability and extensibility. I fail to see how
	XML helps advance these goals in Ant's case. What is the
	advantage of using interpreted XML over simple Java source code?
	Why not create a set of classes with a nice API for commonly
	used tasks (copying directories, compiling, etc.) and using
	those directly from Java source code? This would run on every
	platform that runs Java (which Ant requires anyway), it's
	infinitely extensible, and it has the benefit of having a more
	pleasant, familiar syntax. So why XML? Can we find a good reason
	for using it?</p>
	<p>It turns out that we can (although as I mentioned earlier I'm
	not sure if James was consciously aware of it). XML has the
	property of being far more flexible in terms of introduction of
	semantic constructs than Java could ever hope to be. Don't
	worry, I'm not falling into the trap of using big words to
	describe incomprehensible concepts. This is actually a
	relatively simple idea, though it may take some effort to
	explain. Buckle your seat-belt. We're about to make a giant leap
	towards achieving nirvana.</p>
	<p>How can we represent 'copy' example above in Java code? Here's one way to do it:</p>
	<pre>CopyTask copy = new CopyTask();
	Fileset fileset = new Fileset();

	fileset.setDir("src_dir");
	copy.setToDir("../new/dir");
	copy.setFileset(fileset);

	copy.execute();
	</pre>
	<p>The code is almost the same, albeit a little longer than the original XML. So
	what's different? The answer is that the XML snippet introduces a
	special semantic construct for copying. If we could do it in Java it would look
	like this:</p>
	<pre>
	copy("../new/dir")
	{
	fileset("src_dir");
	}
	</pre>
	<p>Can you see the difference? The code above (if it were possible
	in Java) is a special operator for copying files - similar to a
	<em>for</em> loop or a new <em>foreach</em> construct introduced in Java 5. If we
	had an automatic converter from XML to Java it would likely
	produce the above gibberish. The reason for this is that Java's
	accepted syntax tree grammar is fixed by the language
	specification - we have no way of modifying it. We can add
	packages, classes, methods, but we cannot extend Java to make
	addition of new operators possible. Yet we can do it to our
	heart's content in XML - its syntax tree isn't restricted by
	anything except our interpreter! If the idea is still unclear,
	consider introducing a special operator 'unless' to Java:</p>
	<pre>
	unless(someObject.canFly())
	{
	someObject.transportByGround();
	}
	</pre>
	<p>In the previous two examples we extend the Java language to introduce an
	operator for copying files and a conditional operator <em>unless</em>. We would do this
	by modifying the abstract syntax tree grammar that Java compiler accepts.
	Naturally we cannot do it with standard Java facilities, but we can easily do it
	in XML. Because our XML interpreter parses the abstract syntax tree that results
	from it, we can extend it to include any operator we like.</p>
	<p>For complex operators this ability provides tremendous benefits. Can you imagine
	writing special operators for checking out source code, compiling files, running
	unit testing, sending email? Try to come up with some. If you're dealing with a
	specialized problem (in our case it's building projects) these operators can do
	wonders to decrease the amount of code you have to type and to increase clarity
	and code reuse. Interpreted XML makes this extremely easy to accomplish because
	it's a simple data file that stores hierarchical data. We do not have this option
	in Java because it's hierarchical structure is fixed (as you will soon find out,
	we do have this option in Lisp). Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Ant is
	so successful?</p>
	<p>I urge you to take a look at recent evolution of Java and C# (especially the
	recently released specification for C# 3.0). The languages are being evolved by
	abstracting away commonly used functionality and adding it in the form of
	operators. New C# operators for built-in queries is one example. This is
	accomplished by relatively traditional means: language creators modify the
	accepted abstract syntax tree and add implementations of certain features.
	Imagine the possibilities if the programmer could modify the abstract syntax
	tree himself! Whole new sub-languages could be built for specialized domains (for
	example a language for building projects, like Ant). Can you come up with other
	examples? Think about these concepts for a bit, but don't worry about them too
	much. We'll come back to these issues after introducing a few more ideas. By
	then things will be a little more clear.</p>
	<h2><a id="part_5">Almost Lisp</a></h2>
	<p class="first">Let's forget about the operator business for the moment and try to expand our
	horizons beyond the constraints of Ant's design. I mentioned earlier that Ant
	can be extended by writing conventional Java classes. Ant interpreter then
	attempts to match XML elements to appropriately named Java classes and if the
	match is found the task is executed. An interesting question begs to be asked.
	Why not extend Ant in Ant itself? After all, core tasks contain a lot of
	conventional programming language constructs ('if' being a perfect example). If
	Ant provided constructs to develop tasks in Ant itself we'd reach a higher
	degree of portability. We'd be dependent on a core set of tasks (a standard
	library, if you will) and we wouldn't care if Java runtime is present: the core
	set could be implemented in anything. The rest of the tasks would be built on
	top of the core using Ant-XML itself. Ant would then become a generic,
	extensible, XML-based programming language. Consider the possibilities:</p>
	<pre><task name="Test">
	<echo message="Hello World!"/>
	</task>
	<Test />
	</pre>
	<p>If ant supported the "task" construct, the example above would print "Hello
	World!". In fact, we could write a "task" task in Java and make Ant able to
	extend itself using Ant-XML! Ant would then be able to build more complicated
	primitives on top of simple ones, just like any other programming language! This
	is an example of "XML" based programming language we were talking about in the
	beginning of this tutorial. Not very useful (can you tell why?) but pretty damn
	cool.</p>
	<p>By the way, take a look at our 'Test' task once again. Congratulations. You're
	looking at Lisp code. What on Earth am I talking about? It doesn't look anything
	like Lisp? Don't worry, we'll fix that in a bit. Confused? Good. Let's clear it
	all up!</p>
	<h2><a id="part_6">A Better XML</a></h2>
	<p class="first">I mentioned in the previous section that self-extending Ant wouldn't be very
	useful. The reason for that is XML's verbosity. It's not too bad for data files
	but the moment you try writing reasonably complex code the amount of typing you
	have to do quickly starts to get in the way and progresses to becoming unusable
	for any real project. Have you ever tried writing Ant build scripts? I have, and
	once they get complex enough having to do it in XML becomes really annoying.
	Imagine having to type almost everything in Java twice because you have to close
	every element. Wouldn't that drive you nuts?</p>
	<p>The solution to this problem involves using a less verbose alternative to XML.
	Remember, XML is just a format for representing hierarchical data. We don't have
	to use XML's angle brackets to serialize trees. We could come up with many other
	formats. One such format (incidentally, the one Lisp uses) is called an
	s-expression. S-expressions accomplish the same goals as XML. They're just a lot
	less verbose, which makes them much better suited for typing code. I will
	explain s-expressions in a little while, but before I do I have to clear up a
	few things about XML. Let's consider our XML example for copying files:</p>
	<pre><copy todir="../new/dir">
	<fileset dir="src_dir"/>
	</copy>
	</pre>
	<p>Think of what the parse tree of this snippet would look like in memory. We'd
	have a 'copy' node that contains a fileset node. But what about attributes? How
	do they fit into our picture? If you've ever used XML to describe data and
	wondered whether you should use an element or an attribute, you're not alone.
	Nobody can really figure this out and doing it right tends to be black magic
	rather than science. The reason for that is that attributes are really subsets
	of elements. Anything attributes can do, elements can do as well. The reason
	attributes were introduced is to curb XML's verbosity. Take a look at another
	version of our 'copy' snippet:</p>
	<pre><copy>
	<todir>../new/dir</todir>
	<fileset>
	<dir>src_dir</dir>
	</fileset>
	</copy>
	</pre>
	<p>The two snippets hold exactly the same information. However, we use attributes
	to avoid typing the same thing more than once. Imagine if attributes weren't
	part of XML specification. Writing anything in XML would drive us nuts!</p>
	<p>Now that we got attributes out of the way, let's look at s-expressions. The
	reason we took this detour is that s-expressions do not have attributes. Because
	they're a lot less verbose, attributes are simply unnecessary. This is one thing
	we need to keep in mind when transforming XML to s-expressions. Let's take a
	look at an example. We could translate above snippet to s-expressions like this:</p>
	<pre>(copy
	(todir "../new/dir")
	(fileset (dir "src_dir")))
	</pre>
	<p>Take a good look at this representation. What's different? Angle brackets seem
	to be replaced by parentheses. Instead of enclosing each element into a pair of
	parentheses and then closing each element with a "(/element)" we simply skip the
	second parenthesis in "(element" and proceed. The element is then closed like
	this: ")". That's it! The translation is natural and very simple. It's also a
	lot easier to type. Do parentheses blind first time users? Maybe, but now that
	we're understand the reasoning behind them they're a lot easier to handle. At
	the very least they're better than arthritis inducing verbosity of XML. After
	you get used to s-expressions writing code in them is not only doable but very
	pleasant. And they provide all the benefits of writing code in XML (many of
	which we're yet to explore). Let's take a look at our 'task' code in something
	that looks a lot more like lisp:</p>
	<pre>(task (name "Test")
	(echo (message "Hello World!")))

	(Test)
	</pre>
	<p>S-expressions are called lists in Lisp lingo. Consider our 'task' element above.
	If we rewrite it without a line break and with comas instead of spaces it's
	starting to look surprisingly like a list of elements and other lists (the formatting
	is added to make it easier to see nested lists):</p>
	<pre><span class="list">(task,</span> <span class="inner-list">(name, "test")</span>, <span class="inner-inner-list">(echo,</span> <span class="inner-list">(message, "Hello World!")</span><span class="inner-inner-list">)</span><span class="list">)</span>
	</pre>
	<p>We could do the same with XML. Of course the line above isn't really a list,
	it's a tree, just like its XML-alternative. Don't let references to lists
	confuse you, it's just that lists that contain other lists and trees are
	effectively the same thing. Lisp may stand for List Processing, but it's really
	tree processing - no different than processing XML nodes.</p>

	<p>Whew. After much rambling we finally got to something that looks like Lisp (and
	is Lisp, really). By now the mysterious Lisp parentheses as well as some claims
	made by Lisp advocates should become more clear. But we still have a lot of
	ground to cover. Ready? Let's move on!</p>
	<h2><a id="part_7">C Macros Reloaded</a></h2>
	<p class="first">By now you must be tired of all the XML talk. I'm tired of it as well. It's time
	to take a break from all the trees, s-expressions, and Ant business. Instead,
	let's go back to every programmer's roots. It's time to talk about C
	preprocessor. What's C got to do with anything, I hear you ask? Well, we now
	know enough to get into metaprogramming and discuss code that writes other code.
	Understanding this tends to be hard since all tutorials discuss it in terms of
	languages that you don't know. But there is nothing hard about the concept. I
	believe that a metaprogramming discussion based on C will make the whole thing
	much easier to understand. So, let's see (pun intended).</p>
	<p>Why would anyone want to write a program that writes programs? How can we use
	something like this in the real world? What on Earth is metaprogramming, anyway?
	You already know all the answers, you just don't know it yet. In order to unlock
	the hidden vault of divine knowledge let's consider a rather mundane task of
	simple database access from code. We've all been there. Writing SQL queries all
	over the code to modify data within tables turns into repetitive hell soon
	enough. Even with the new C# 3.0 LINQ stuff this is a huge pain. Writing a full
	SQL query (albeit with a nice built in syntax) to get someone's name or to
	modify someone's address isn't exactly a programmer's idea of comfort. What do
	we do to solve these problems? Enter data access layers.</p>
	<p>The idea is simple enough. You abstract database access (at least trivial
	queries, anyway) by creating a set of classes that mirror the tables in the
	database and use accessor methods to execute actual queries. This simplifies
	development tremendously - instead of writing SQL queries we make simple method
	calls (or property assignments, depending on your language of choice). Anyone
	who has ever used even the simplest of data access layers knows how much time it
	can save. Of course anyone who has ever written one knows how much time it can
	kill - writing a set of classes that mirror tables and convert accessors to SQL
	queries takes a considerable chunk of time. This seems especially silly since
	most of the work is manual: once you figure out the design and develop a
	template for your typical data access class you don't need to do any thinking.
	You just write code based on the same template over and over and over and over
	again. Many people figured out that there is a better way - there are plenty of
	tools that connect to the database, grab the schema, and write code for you based
	on a predefined (or a custom) template.</p>
	<p>Anyone who has ever used such a tool knows what an amazing time saver it can be.
	In a few clicks you connect the tool to the database, get it to generate the
	data access layer source code, add the files to your project and voilà - ten
	minutes worth of work do a better job than hundreds of man-hours that were
	required previously. What happens if your database schema changes? Well, you
	just have to go through this short process again. Of course some of the best
	tools let you automate this - you simply add them as a part of your build step
	and every time you compile your project everything is done for you
	automatically. This is perfect! You barely have to do anything at all. If the
	schema ever changes your data access layer code updates automatically at compile
	time and any obsolete access in your code will result in compiler errors!</p>
	<p>Data access layers are one good example, but there are plenty of others. From
	boilerplate GUI code, to web code, to COM and CORBA stubs, to MFC and ATL, -
	there are plenty of examples where the same code is written over and over again.
	Since writing this code is a task that can be automated completely and a
	programmer's time is far more expensive than CPU time, plenty of tools have been
	created that generate this boilerplate code automatically. What are these tools,
	exactly? Well, they are programs that write programs. They perform a simple task
	that has a mysterious name of metaprogramming. That's all there is to it.</p>
	<p>We could create and use such tools in millions of scenarios but more often than
	not we don't. What it boils down to is a subconscious calculation - is it worth it
	for me to create a separate project, write a whole tool to generate something,
	and then use it, if I only have to write these very similar pieces about seven
	times? Of course not. Data access layers and COM stubs are written hundreds,
	thousands of times. This is why there are tools for them. For similar pieces of
	code that repeat only a few times, or even a few dozen times, writing code
	generation tools isn't even considered. The trouble to create such a tool more
	often than not far outweighs the benefit of using one. If only creating such
	tools was much easier, we could use them more often, and perhaps save many hours
	of our time. Let's see if we can accomplish this in a reasonable manner.</p>
	<p>Surprisingly C preprocessor comes to the rescue. We've all used it in C and C++.
	On occasion we all wish Java had it. We use it to execute simple instructions
	at compile time to make small changes to our code (like selectively removing
	debug statements). Let's look at a quick example:</p>
	<pre>#define triple(X) X + X + X
	</pre>
	<p>What does this line do? It's a simple instruction written in the preprocessor
	language that instructs it to replace all instances of <em>triple(X)</em> with <em>X + X +
	X</em>. For example all instances of '<em>triple(5)</em>' will be replaced with '<em>5 + 5 + 5</em>'
	and the resulting code will be compiled by the C compiler. We're really doing a
	very primitive version of code generation here. If only C preprocessor was a
	little more powerful and included ways to connect to the database and a few more
	simple constructs, we could use it to develop our data access layer right there,
	from within our program! Consider the following example that uses an imaginary
	extension of the C preprocessor:</p>
	<pre>#get-db-schema("127.0.0.1, un, pwd");
	#iterate-through-tables
	#for-each-table
	class #table-name
	{
	};
	#end-for-each
	</pre>
	<p>We've just connected to the database schema, iterated through all the tables,
	and created an empty class for each. All in a couple of lines right within our
	source code! Now every time we recompile the file where above code appears we'll
	get a freshly built set of classes that automatically update based on the
	schema. With a little imagination you can see how we could build a full data
	access layer straight from within our program, without the use of any external
	tools! Of course this has a certain disadvantage (aside from the fact that such
	an advanced version of C preprocessor doesn't exist) - we'd have to learn a
	whole new "compile-time language" to do this sort of work. For complex code
	generation this language would have to be very complex as well, it would have to
	support many libraries and language constructs. For example, if our generated
	code depended on some file located at some ftp server the preprocessor would
	have to be able to connect to ftp. It's a shame to create and learn a new
	language just to do this. Especially since there are so many nice languages
	already out there. Of course if we add a little creativity we can easily avoid
	this pitfall.</p>
	<p>Why not replace the preprocessor language with C/C++ itself? We'd have full
	power of the language at compile time and we'd only need to learn a few simple
	directives to differentiate between compile time and runtime code!</p>
	<pre><%
	cout << "Enter a number: ";
	cin >> n;
	%>
	for(int i = 0; i < <%= n %>; i++)
	{
	cout << "hello" << endl;
	}
	</pre>
	<p>Can you see what happens here? Everything that's between <% and %> tags
	runs when the program is compiled. Anything outside of these tags is normal
	code. In the example above you'd start compiling your program in the development
	environment. The code between the tags would be compiled and then ran. You'd get
	a prompt to enter a number. You'd enter one and it would be placed inside the
	for loop. The for loop would then be compiled as usual and you'd be able to
	execute it. For example, if you'd enter 5 during the compilation of your
	program, the resulting code would look like this:</p>
	<pre>for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
	{
	cout << "hello" << endl;
	}
	</pre>
	<p>Simple and effective. No need for a special preprocessor language. We get full
	power of our host language (in this case C/C++) at compile time. We could easily
	connect to a database and generate our data access layer source code at compile
	time in the same way JSP or ASP generate HTML! Creating such tools would also be
	tremendously quick and simple. We'd never have to create new projects with
	specialized GUIs. We could inline our tools right into our programs. We wouldn't
	have to worry about whether writing such tools is worth it because writing them
	would be so fast - we could save tremendous amounts of time by creating simple
	bits of code that do mundane code generation for us!</p>

	<h2><a id="part_8">Hello, Lisp!</a></h2>
	<p class="first">Everything we've learned about Lisp so far can be summarized by a single
	statement: Lisp is executable XML with a friendlier syntax. We haven't said a
	single word about how Lisp actually operates. It's time to fill this
	gap<sup><a href="Defmarco - The Nature of Lisp.html#note-blaise">2</a></sup>.</p>
	<p>Lisp has a number of built in data types. Integers and strings, for example,
	aren't much different from what you're used to. The meaning of <em>71</em> or <em>"hello"</em> is
	roughly the same in Lisp as in C++ or Java. What is of more interest to us are
	<em>symbols</em>, <em>lists</em>, and <em>functions</em>. I will spend the rest of this section describing
	these data types as well as how a Lisp environment compiles and executes the
	source code you type into it (this is called <em>evaluation</em> in Lisp lingo). Getting
	through this section in one piece is important for understanding true potential of
	Lisp's metaprogramming, the unity of code and data, and the notion of domain
	specific languages. Don't think of this section as a chore though, I'll try to
	make it fun and accessible. Hopefully you can pick up a few interesting ideas on
	the way. Ok. Let's start with Lisp's symbols.</p>
	<p>A symbol in Lisp is roughly equivalent to C++ or Java's notion of an identifier.
	It's a name you can use to access a variable (like <em>currentTime</em>, <em>arrayCount</em>, <em>n</em>,
	etc.) The difference is that a symbol in Lisp is a lot more liberal than its
	mainstream identifier alternative. In C++ or Java you're limited to
	alphanumeric characters and an underscore. In Lisp, you are not. For example <em>+</em>
	is a valid symbol. So is <em>-</em>, <em>=</em>, <em>hello-world</em>, <em>hello+world</em>, <em>*</em>, etc. (you can find
	the exact definition of valid Lisp symbols online). You can assign to these
	symbols any data-type you like. Let's ignore Lisp syntax and use pseudo-code for
	now. Assume that a function <em>set</em> assigns some value to a symbol (like <em>=</em> does
	in Java or C++). The following are all valid examples:</p>
	<pre>set(test, 5) // symbol 'test' will equal an integer 5
	set(=, 5) // symbol '=' will equal an integer 5
	set(test, "hello") // symbol 'test' will equal a string "hello"
	set(test, =) // at this point symbol '=' is equal to 5
	// therefore symbol 'test' will equal to 5
	set(, "hello") // symbol '' will equal a string "hello"
	</pre>
	<p>At this point something must smell wrong. If we can assign strings and integers
	to symbols like <em></em>, how does Lisp do multiplication? After all, <em></em> means
	multiply, right? The answer is pretty simple. Functions in Lisp aren't special.
	There is a data-type, function, just like integer and string, that you assign to
	symbols. A multiplication function is built into Lisp and is assigned to a
	symbol <em></em>. You can reassign a different value to <em></em> and you'd lose the
	multiplication function. Or you can store the value of the function in some
	other variable. Again, using pseudo-code:</p>
	<pre>*(3, 4) // multiplies 3 by 4, resulting in 12
	set(temp, ) // symbol '' is equal to the multiply function
	// so temp will equal to the multiply function
	set(, 3) // sets symbol '' to equal to 3
	(3, 4) // error, symbol '' no longer equals to a function
	// it's equal to 3
	temp(3, 4) // temp equals to a multiply function
	// so Lisp multiplies 3 by 4 resulting in 12
	set(, temp) // symbol '' equals multiply function again
	*(3, 4) // multiplies 3 by 4, resulting in 12
	</pre>
	<p>You can even do wacky stuff like reassigning plus to minus:</p>
	<pre>set(+, -) // the value of '-' is a built in minus function
	// so now symbol '+' equals to a minus function
	+(5, 4) // since symbol '+' is equal to the minus function
	// this results in 1
	</pre>
	<p>I've used functions quite liberally in these examples but I didn't describe them
	yet. A function in Lisp is just a data-type like an integer, a string, or a
	symbol. A function doesn't have a notion of a name like in Java or C++. Instead, it
	stands on its own. Effectively it is a pointer to a block of code along with
	some information (like a number of parameters it accepts). You only give the
	function a name by assigning it to a symbol, just like you assign an integer or
	a string. You can create a function by using a built in function for creating
	functions, assigned to a symbol 'fn'. Using pseudo-code:</p>
	<pre>fn [a]
	{
	return *(a, 2);
	}
	</pre>
	<p>This returns a function that takes a single parameter named <em>'a'</em> and doubles it.
	Note that the function has no name but you can assign it to a symbol:</p>
	<pre>set(times-two, fn [a] { return *(a, 2); })
	</pre>
	<p>We can now call this function:</p>
	<pre>times-two(5) // returns 10
	</pre>
	<p>Now that we went over symbols and functions, what about lists? Well, you already
	know a lot about them. Lists are simply pieces of XML written in s-expression
	form. A list is specified by parentheses and contains Lisp data-types (including
	other lists) separated by a space. For example (this is real Lisp, note that we
	use semicolons for comments now):</p>
	<pre>() ; an empty list
	(1) ; a list with a single element, 1
	(1 "test") ; a list with two elements
	; an integer 1 and a string "test"
	(test "hello") ; a list with two elements
	; a symbol test and a string "hello"
	(test (1 2) "hello") ; a list with three elements, a symbol test
	; a list of two integers 1 and 2
	; and a string "hello"
	</pre>
	<p>When a Lisp system encounters lists in the source code it acts exactly like Ant
	does when it encounters XML - it attempts to execute them. In fact, Lisp source
	code is only specified using lists, just like Ant source code is only specified
	using XML. Lisp executes lists in the following manner. The first element of the
	list is treated as the name of a function. The rest of the elements are treated
	as functions parameters. If one of the parameters is another list it is
	executed using the same principles and the result is passed as a parameter to
	the original function. That's it. We can write real code now:</p>
	<pre>(* 3 4) ; equivalent to pseudo-code *(3, 4).
	; Symbol '*' is a function
	; 3 and 4 are its parameters.
	; Returns 12.
	(times-two 5) ; returns 10
	(3 4) ; error: 3 is not a function
	(times-two) ; error, times-two expects one parameter
	(times-two 3 4) ; error, times-two expects one parameter
	(set + -) ; sets symbol '+' to be equal to whatever symbol '-'
	; equals to, which is a minus function
	(+ 5 4) ; returns 1 since symbol '+' is now equal
	; to the minus function
	(* 3 (* 2 2)) ; multiplies 3 by the second parameter
	; (which is a function call that returns 4).
	; Returns 12.
	</pre>
	<p>Note that so far every list we've specified was treated by a Lisp system as
	code. But how can we treat a list as data? Again, imagine an Ant task that
	accepts XML as one of its parameters. In Lisp we do this using a quote operator
	<em>'</em> like so:</p>
	<pre>(set test '(1 2)) ; test is equal to a list of two integers, 1 and 2
	(set test (1 2)) ; error, 1 is not a function
	(set test '(* 3 4)) ; sets test to a list of three elements,
	; a symbol *, an integer 3, and an integer 4
	</pre>
	<p>We can use a built in function <em>head</em> to return the first element of the
	list, and a built in function <em>tail</em> to return the rest of the list's
	elements:</p>
	<pre>(head '(* 3 4)) ; returns a symbol '*'
	(tail '(* 3 4)) ; returns a list (3 4)
	(head (tail '( * 3 4))) ; (tail '(* 3 4)) returns a list (3 4)
	; and (head '(3 4)) returns 3.
	(head test) ; test was set to a list in previous example
	; returns a symbol '*'
	</pre>
	<p>You can think of built in Lisp functions as you think of Ant tasks. The difference
	is that we don't have to extend Lisp in another language (although we can), we can
	extend it in Lisp itself as we did with the <em>times-two</em> example. Lisp comes with a very
	compact set of built in functions - the necessary minimum. The rest of the language
	is implemented as a standard library in Lisp itself.</p>
	<h2><a id="part_9">Lisp Macros</a></h2>
	<p class="first">So far we've looked at metaprogramming in terms of a simple templating
	engine similar to JSP. We've done code generation using simple string
	manipulations. This is generally how most code generation tools go
	about doing this task. But we can do much better. To get on the
	right track, let's start off with a question. How would we write a
	tool that automatically generates Ant build scripts by looking at
	source files in the directory structure?</p>
	<p>We could take the easy way out and generate Ant XML by manipulating
	strings. Of course a much more abstract, expressive and extensible way
	is to work with XML processing libraries to generate XML nodes
	directly in memory. The nodes can then be serialized to strings
	automatically. Furthermore, our tool would be able to analyze and
	transform existing Ant build scripts by loading them and dealing with
	the XML nodes directly. We would abstract ourselves from strings and deal
	with higher level concepts which let us get the job done faster and
	easier.</p>
	<p>Of course we could write Ant tasks that allow dealing with XML
	transformations and write our generation tool in Ant itself. Or we
	could just use Lisp. As we saw earlier, a list is a built in Lisp
	data structure and Lisp has a number of facilities for processing lists
	quickly and effectively (<em>head</em> and <em>tail</em> being the simplest ones). Additionally Lisp
	has no semantic constraints - you can have your code (and data) have
	any structure you want.</p>
	<p>Metaprogramming in Lisp is done using a
	construct called a "macro". Let's try to develop a set of macros that
	transform data like, say, a to-do list (surprised?), into a language for dealing with
	to-do lists.</p>
	<p>Let's recall our to-do list example. The XML looks like this:</p>
	<pre><todo name="housework">
	<item priority="high">Clean the house.</item>
	<item priority="medium">Wash the dishes.</item>
	<item priority="medium">Buy more soap.</item>
	</todo>
	</pre>
	<p>The corresponding s-expression version looks like this:</p>
	<pre>(todo "housework"
	(item (priority high) "Clean the house.")
	(item (priority medium) "Wash the dishes.")
	(item (priority medium) "Buy more soap."))
	</pre>
	<p>Suppose we're writing a to-do manager application. We keep our to-do
	items serialized in a set of files and when the program starts up we
	want to read them and display them to the user. How would we do this
	with XML and some other language (say, Java)? We'd parse our XML files
	with the to-do lists using some XML parser, write the code that walks
	the XML tree and converts it to a Java data structure (because frankly,
	processing DOM in Java is a pain in the neck), and then use
	this data structure to display the data. Now, how would we do the
	same thing in Lisp?</p>
	<p>If we were to adopt the same approach we'd parse the files using Lisp
	libraries responsible for parsing XML. The XML would then be presented
	to us as a Lisp list (an s-expression) and we'd walk the list and
	present relevant data to the user. Of course if we used Lisp it would
	make sense to persist the data as s-expressions directly as there's no
	reason to do an XML conversion. We wouldn't need special parsing
	libraries since data persisted as a set of s-expressions is valid Lisp and we
	could use Lisp compiler to parse it and store it in memory as a Lisp
	list. Note that Lisp compiler (much like .NET compiler) is available
	to a Lisp program at runtime.</p>
	<p>But we can do better. Instead of writing code to walk the s-expression
	that stores our data we could write a macro that allows us to treat
	data as code! How do macros work? Pretty simple, really. Recall that a
	Lisp function is called like this:</p>
	<pre>(function-name arg1 arg2 arg3)
	</pre>
	<p>Where each argument is a valid Lisp expression that's evaluated and
	passed to the function. For example if we replace <em>arg1</em> above with <em>(+ 4
	5)</em>, it will be evaluated and <em>9</em> would be passed to the function. A
	macro works the same way as a function, except its arguments are not
	evaluated.</p>
	<pre>(macro-name (+ 4 5))
	</pre>
	<p>In this case, (+ 4 5) is not evaluated and is passed to the macro as a
	list. The macro is then free to do what it likes with it, including
	evaluating it. The return value of a macro is a Lisp list that's
	treated as code. The original place with the macro is replaced with
	this code. For example, we could define a macro plus that takes two
	arguments and puts in the code that adds them.</p>
	<p>What does it have to do with metaprogramming and our to-do list problem?
	Well, for one, macros are little bits of code that generate code using
	a list abstraction. Also, we could create macros named <em>to-do</em> and <em>item</em> that
	replace our data with whatever code we like, for instance code that
	displays the item to the user.</p>
	<p>What benefits does this approach offer? We don't have to walk the list.
	The compiler will do it for us and will invoke appropriate macros. All
	we need to do is create the macros that convert our data to
	appropriate code!</p>
	<p>For example, a macro similar to our <em>triple</em> C macro we showed earlier
	looks like this:</p>
	<pre>(defmacro triple (x)
	'(+ ~x ~x ~x))
	</pre>
	<p>The quote prevents evaluation while the tilde allows it. Now every
	time <em>triple</em> is encountered in lisp code:</p>
	<pre>(triple 4)
	</pre>
	<p>it is replaced with the following code:</p>
	<pre>(+ 4 4 4)
	</pre>
	<p>We can create macros for our to-do list items that will get called by
	lisp compiler and will transform the to-do list into code. Now our to-do
	list will be treated as code and will be executed. Suppose all we want to do
	is print it to standard output for the user to read:</p>
	<pre>(defmacro item (priority note)
	'(block
	(print stdout tab "Priority: " ~(head (tail priority)) endl)
	(print stdout tab "Note: " ~note endl endl)))
	</pre>
	<p>We've just created a very small and limited language for managing to-do lists
	embedded in Lisp. Such languages are very specific to a particular problem domain
	and are often referred to as domain specific languages or <em>DSLs</em>.</p>
	<h2><a id="part_10">Domain Specific Languages</a></h2>
	<p class="first">In this article we've already encountered two domain specific languages: Ant
	(specific to dealing with project builds) and our unnamed mini-language for dealing with to-do
	lists. The difference is that Ant was written from scratch using XML, an XML parser, and Java while
	our language is embedded into Lisp and is easily created within a couple of minutes.</p>
	<p>We've already discussed the benefits of DSLs, mainly why Ant is using XML, not Java source code.
	Lisp lets us create as many DSLs as we need for our problem. We can create domain specific languages
	for creating web applications, writing massively multiplayer games, doing fixed income trading,
	solving the protein folding problem, dealing with transactions, etc. We can layer these languages on
	top of each other and create a language for writing web-based trading applications by taking advantage
	of our web application language and bond trading language. Every day we'd reap the benefits of
	this approach, much like we reap the benefits of Ant.</p>
	<p>Using DSLs to solve problems results in much more compact, maintainable, flexible programs. In
	a way we create them in Java by creating classes that help us solve the problem. The difference
	is that Lisp allows us to take this abstraction to the next level: we're not limited by Java's parser.
	Think of writing build scripts in Java itself using some supporting library. Compare it to using Ant.
	Now apply this same comparison to every single problem you've ever worked on and you'll begin
	to glimpse a small share of the benefits offered by Lisp.</p>
	<h2><a id="part_11">What's next?</a></h2>
	<p class="first">
	Learning Lisp is an uphill battle. Even though in Computer Science terms Lisp is an ancient language,
	few people to date figured out how to teach it well enough
	to make it accessible. Despite great efforts by many Lisp advocates,
	learning Lisp today is still hard. The good news is that this won't remain the case forever
	since the amount of Lisp-related resources is rapidly increasing. Time is on Lisp's side.</p>
	<p>Lisp is a way to escape mediocrity and to get ahead of the pack. Learning Lisp
	means you can get a better job today, because you can impress any reasonably intelligent interviewer
	with fresh insight into most aspects of software engineering. It also means
	you're likely to get fired tomorrow because everyone is tired of you constantly mentioning how much better
	the company could be doing if only its software was written in Lisp. Is it worth the effort? Everyone who has ever
	learned Lisp says yes. The choice, of course, remains yours.</p>
	<h2><a id="part_12">Comments?</a></h2>
	<p class="first">Whew. That's enough. I've been writing this article, on and off, for months. If you find it interesting,
	have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please drop a note at <a href="mailto:coffeemug@gmail.com">coffeemug@gmail.com</a>.
	I'll be glad to hear your feedback.</p>
	<div id="footnotes">
	<p><sup><a id="note-james">1</a></sup>I have never met James, nor does he know about my existence. The story is entirely fictional and is based on
	a few postings about Ant's history I found on the internet.</p>
	<p><sup><a id="note-blaise">2</a></sup>Lisp
	has many different dialects (the most popular of which are Common Lisp
	and Scheme). Each dialect deals with intricate details differently yet
	shares the same set of basic principles. Since the goal of this article
	is to give you an understanding of Lisp's principles I will use Blaise
	for examples (which at the time of this writing is vaporware). With
	some minor modifications these examples can be translated to other Lisp
	dialects.</p>
	</div>
	</div>
	</body></html>