Executable XML users challenge

provide any LISP macro with clear explanation of its structure and function
that is :
1.concise (max 10 lines)
2.does not have a C equivalent(at least not anything above 100 lines)
3.does not use any libraries or imported complex functions which are not in C
If you provide an exact explanation/commentary on what it does i'll try to make a C solution which
is equivalent to LISP one. If i fail to do so, LISP wins, if i provide a solution you can make another macro.
If all examples in the thread are provide with C equivalents, LISP loses.

>>175
You're a faggot. I am a self-taught programmer, too. It's not my fault your horizon is the end of your nose. Read the fucking link I provided, everything is explained there.

>>238
Oh shit. Do you mean we gotta get rid of dlopen now?

>>241
It's frozenvoId , what were you expecting? Someone that actually knew how to program? Based on previous posts in different threads it's clear he doesn't even know the C standard let alone how certain things work.

the moron didn't even know what actually happens when you malloc(-#)

>>243

Come on! Don't be too picky on him. He's trying to "fix the C language" for all of us!

>>242
You do realize that dlopen is not part of the C standard, right? Or do you not know what POSIX is?

the loop macro is a good example of lisp's macro power: http://www.ai.sri.com/pkarp/loop.html

>>246
loop is a good example of how good shit gets out of control.

Replies to posts >>236-246 are compiled here:
http://pastebin.com/6cwJqV2n

>>248
I have a challenge for you. Try not to fail. Just once.

>>246
Additional reply;
Loop macro is not really needed in C code, and you can abstract over with function calls.
Its not a pretty as map/reduce but you can work at a similar level of abstraction/code density without the requirement of entire high-level bloat layer. Add a couple of function pointers, and you can abstract away at your leisure.
The people who add things like foreach macros are trying to force it the wrong way(its not semantically wrong just lacks native support: i would want such thing supported only at the level of a language, not as a macro i would have to rely on), since they think container-specific functions are unelegant.

>>250

The people who add things like foreach macros are trying to force it the wrong way(its not semantically wrong just lacks native support: i would want such thing supported only at the level of a language, not as a macro i would have to rely on), since they think container-specific functions are unelegant.

People like are trying to emulate an interator you fucking nob. Again, you wouldn't know something like this because you have never written an actual line of C code. Now tell us again why you want to introduce platform specific shit into the C standard you fucking idiot.

>>251
"Emulating" an iterator us better left to functions.
I don't believe in C standard as some religion. Please avoid treating it as such, it makes arguing about changes to C much more subjective(one likes C standard, one want another C standard, one wants to scrap the entire standard and start over and all of them have their arguments replaced by blind adherence/disapproval of some abstract bureaucratic bullshit)

>>252

"Emulating" an iterator us better left to functions.

Have you ever actually written any non trivial C code in your life?

I don't believe in C standard as some religion. Please avoid treating it as such, it makes arguing about changes to C much more subjective(one likes C standard, one want another C standard, one wants to scrap the entire standard and start over and all of them have their arguments replaced by blind adherence/disapproval of some abstract bureaucratic bullshit)

C is meant to portable. The standards are meant to ensure portability. If you want to make changes to C, then create your own language.

>>253
There are ways to be portable without crippling the language.

>>254
Yes, it's called include guards you idiot. Again, you wouldn't know about such things because you have never written any kind of real C code for any kind of major firm.

>>255 quick question, are you >>254 or are you actually that trolled?


'>Frozenvoid: Ill make C equivalent lisp macros because im gay
>Someone posts nice simple small elegant lisp macro
>Frozenvoid posts 20+ lines of unreadable C macro abuse that looks like pure shit
>Someone posts something nice again
>Frozenvoid: yeah i can do that but i wont because i dont have to


great thread, yet another example of how Frozenvoid sucks dick and doesn't know C, especially that reddit post.

Why are you fucking retards replying to FrozenShit?

it's the same reason why people throw shit at /dev/null