Of course, it helped there were some new victims, two of whom came all the way down from Amsterdam, to help stir the pot.
He introduced the dflet macro, which allows one to dynamically rebind a function just like a special variable. In addition, you can invoke call-next-function within that function redefinition when you desire to call previously bound versions. (i.e. you can access definitions higher on the stack.) This way, you can meet new requirements like logging without touching old code.
All this is implemented in 52 lines at the end of his paper. Slides are also available.
I personally hadn't yet looked closely at Aspects before, so I can't judge the lecture from an AOP expert's standpoint. However, Arthur Lemmens seemed very interested in Pascal's 52-line Lisp implementation in its own right, since he felt it would make a very useful technique for his professional lisp work. Hopefully someone will run with this technique; Kent Pitman once mentioned dynamic functions were once up for standardization, and dflet may be key for exploring them sanely.
Incidentally, conference vids were brought up. Maybe some small clips of the proceedings be made available, so new people could see something interesting? Arthur (the other half of the Amsterdam duo) mentioned Ernst gave a tutorial about macros there. I don't know the audience level of that tutorial, but such things could be useful. Or the Sussman keynote could appeal to a mainstream audience, an early form of which is at Ars Digita University.
As a side topic, we noticed the culture shock of dealing with other language communities. For example, with Pythonistas it's disturbingly common to claim, "Guido said X. I don't think Guido wants Y." Feel free, dear reader, to judge what effect this must have on users.
Peter Herth created a multiplayer realtime MUD, and felt Java and Python did not give him the dynamism he wanted. So he discovered Scheme which provided a wonderful extension language. Then he went over to the dark side with Lisp for standalone projects.
Mario Mommer and Marcus Breiing did not refresh my memory over email, so I will let them post here or on Cliki if they wish.
I am also fuzzy on Arthur's background, but he mentioned how generally his clients are glad to let him determine the choice of tech. So he uses Xanalys Lispworks. [Paid advertisement: "Lispworks -- when Franz just gets you NOWHERE."] However, he had a scientist client who insisted on C++ because it made him comfortable to know a little of what was going on. Arthur nudged him a little over time, since they were doing exploratory work and he knew Lisp would save the client money; but of course the customer is always right in the end. However, the client came around to the dark side since a Christmas deadline loomed. Arthur noted that despite a rewrite, they were happily on schedule to comfortably meet the deadline.
(A discussion ensued here about methodologies relative to the different languages. Ernst pointed out the efficiency of the waterfall model; while it?s clearly not amenable to requirement changes, it?s still the most efficient when one can pull it off. For those interested in such things, I heartily recommend McConnell's _Code Complete_.)
Ernst was "electrified" when he learned of Lisp macros, and had a good time using SICP with his students. He had some interesting info about what percentage of his students desired to "push on? and become very good, as opposed to those who sort of plateaued and became satisfied with relatively modest goals. Apparently, he got sick of academia when (among other things) his fellow profs acted in the stereotypical manner when discussing lisp, and eventually he left to pursue professional goals.
Personally, I just kind of blabbed something to the effect that I had previously wondered why all the power of computer modelling could not present a sane, regular representation of computation. (Tayssir John Gabbour's Road to Lisp)
Apparently too many papers lack all 3, while Mario?s fulfilled them all. So he was already ahead of academia?s current standard.
Pascal also related the anecdote illustrating how relative a concept ?readability? is. He always had trouble deciphering those greek letters which CS people use in formulas. At a conference, he asked a friend to try out lisp, since he secretly felt her greeked-up papers were unreadable. She replied Lisp was so hard to read...
Incidentally, Paul Graham also pointed out the sad madness of greek letters.
I believe he said his crazy fantasy was dynamic functions as default. A friend of mine visited and wanted my attention, so he mostly expanded to Arthur on how this could be made to work. Sigh, my loss.
As I wrote this, a new person asked about the meetings. I haven?t checked up with him yet, but perhaps he can give one on Agile Methodologies. These were mentioned during the meeting, and not everyone was familiar with these promising new (?) methodologies.