Why? It seems like you think that "programs" are real and important, and can't see the computation behind them. The "code is data" concept is about computations. The restrictions you try to impose ("in the same program", blah blah) are utterly irrelevant.
Please, just shut up.
It's like if a not very bright Lisp programmer declared that Haskell is less powerful than Lisp because in Lisp conses are mutable, while in Haskell you have to return another cons, and another cons is not the same cons. Like if computation cared about such minutae.
You're getting boring.
Again, you are talking about superficial resemblance.
Lisp macros are called Lisp macros because Lisp has Lisp macros.
And again, the shallowness of your thought is astonishing.
Macros and closures are tools. Instruments. They are used to achieve some goals, to write a program that has certain form and does certain things. I say that having closures allows you to do anything you can do with macros, in a more or less similar fashion. Like, screws and nails look differently and are applied differently, but in the end when you need too planks put together, it doesn't matter much if they are nailed or screwed together
From today, start programming in BASIC, not even Visual Basic, just BASIC. It is Turing-complete, it's just a
tool, it has everything you need, it can do all the
computations you need to do because it's Turing-complete, blah, blah.
Stupid brainless troll.
And yes, with anonymous functions I don't need a built-in "if", I can write my own which would be used in pretty much the same fashion.
(define (if p t f) ; how does I branched without something to branch with now, without using (lambda (x y) x) and (lambda (x y) y) for true and false, because they are not #t and #f, because they are not t and nil, (``somebranch-when-eq?-p-#t'' (t) (f))
)
(if (number? 3) (lambda () (display "it's true")) (lambda () (display "it's false")))
Have you read your SICP today?
I have, what about you? Have you compiled your metacircular evaluator in C, today?
Hahaha I'm so funny, C is not homoiconic!
Why, is there such a huge difference between using a single grave mark and two quote marks?
Because Lisp programs are lists, C++ programs are not strings.
'(1 2 3) is a shorthand for
(quote (1 2 3)). Are you saying that C++ translates
"string" to
string(string);? What about the spaces, then?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22in+Lisp+DSL%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
You are new to
/prog/, aren't you?
Here, take a look of what we call ``in Lisp DSL'':
http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1293689458
The name derives from the guy that, posting his code written in the DSL, keeped saying he wrote it in Lisp.
From then, he was called ``in Lisp'' guy, the DSL ``in Lisp DSL''.
Even if we joke on it, the DSL is very powerful and pure art.