So, picking up where I left off...
David Moon, about whom the internet knows surprisingly little, gave a wild talk on a language he's been working on: the Programming Language for Old-Timers. Actually the talk wasn't about the language, but its macro system. PLOT is a language with syntax, but whose grammar is defined in itself.
PLOT macros take token streams, produced by a fixed tokenizer, and perform LL(1) parsing on that stream, building up abstract syntax tree objects or returning other token streams. Actually, given that macro output can be AST objects, macros take AST fragments as well. The interesting thing is that macros are hygienic, that they track source locations, and that they have access to the full PLOT language themselves. It seems that you can actually implement Lisp macros on top of PLOT macros.
Anyway, a sharp tool, but I look forward to seeing what Moon carves with it.
Next up was a talk by Joe Marshall, a Scheme hacker now working at Google, about implementing continuations on machines with no continuation support, like the JVM or CLR. The basic idea was for functions to be modified to return an OK/Error flag, with the actual return value in an additional output argument. The compiler should do some live-variable analysis, and have a separate flow path that saves variable values all the way down the stack, as functions return "Error", and that can be restored when you reinstate a continuation.
It's nasty. Joe must really want Scheme on the CLR.
Next there was Alexey Radul, a grad student of Sussman's, giving a talk entitled "The Art of the Propagator". The concepts were interesting, although hindered by Radul's poor diction. The basic idea appears to be an approach to calculating constraints-based systems in the presence of backtracking and conflicting information, with electronics as a metaphor -- connecting boxes and wires, signals flowing back and forth. Not like any problem I have ever seen in practice, though.
Following that were a set of lightning talks, the last of which was legendary: one M. Greenberg (who was that guy?) talking about the history of an old macro system, TRAC. Apparently all computation in TRAC was done by macros. Macros could rewrite their definitions out of existence, and thus be recursive and terminate. It was startling, but Greenberg steeled our resolve with the words, "Don't be afraid of macros -- they'll sense your fear, and fuck you up."
Then, a panel discussion on the future of Lisp, the ostensible topic of the conference. From left to right there was Pascal Costanza, an academic from Brussels hacking mostly on CLOS-related things; Edi Weitz, an industrial Common Lisp hacker; Ravi Nanavati, an erstwhile Schemer but current Haskeller; Rich Hickey, Clojure language designer; Alan Bawden, former Scheme Steering Committee member; Duane Rettig, Allegro CL hacker; and Scott McKay, a former Scheme and Dylan hacker now working for ITA software. Kent Pitman moderated.
It started good, with the long view, then things devolved. Eventually the audience started to talk with each other instead of with the panel, and for some reason settled down onto the "why isn't Lisp popular" navel-gaze. Quite disappointing.
After dinner, there was a staged "debate" on "Macros: Are they a menace?" It was obvious that the panel (Steele, Gabriel, Costanza, and the scapegoat, someone whose name I forget) was having a good time. At one point, Gabriel wrote out the "(defmacro .....)" on the chalkboard, noted that the "..." is often large and thus heavy and must sink to the bottom, leaving the parenthesis before the "defmacro" looking like a frowny face: q.e.d.
More seriously, the arguments against macros centered on control: control by bosses on workers, with the idea that macros make custom languages, thus making individual programmers less replaceable. While I don't believe the premise, the conclusion to me comes from another world. I hack Free Software precisely because I like my trade, and want to practice it in an environment free from coercion and domination.
The "debate" had an interlude, in which Costanza asked Sussman why MIT had switched away from Scheme for their introductory programming course, 6.001. This was a gem. He said that the reason that happened was because engineering in 1980 was not what it was in the mid-90s or in 2000. In 1980, good programmers spent a lot of time thinking, and then produced spare code that they thought should work. Code ran close to the metal, even Scheme -- it was understandable all the way down. Like a resistor, where you could read the bands and know the power rating and the tolerance and the resistance and V=IR and that's all there was to know. 6.001 had been conceived to teach engineers how to take small parts that they understood entirely and use simple techniques to compose them into larger things that do what you want.
But programming now isn't so much like that, said Sussman. Nowadays you muck around with incomprehensible or nonexistent man pages for software you don't know who wrote. You have to do basic science on your libraries to see how they work, trying out different inputs and seeing how the code reacts. This is a fundamentally different job, and it needed a different course.
So the good thing about the new 6.001 was that it was robot-centered -- you had to program a little robot to move around. And robots are not like resistors, behaving according to ideal functions. Wheels slip, the environment changes, etc -- you have to build in robustness to the system, in a different way than the one SICP discusses.
And why Python, then? Well, said Sussman, it probably just had a library already implemented for the robotics interface, that was all.
Now it's Tuesday morning, which started with some guy talking about bombing people with Lisp. Or maybe it was about supplying parts to the military. At one point there was a slide with a little clip-art tank and a clip-art pistol and a clip-art fighter jet. Sheesh.