> How easy is camlp4/5 metaprogramming to read and write compared to Lisp macros?
Having implemented a non-trivial 'macro' in camlp4 and likewise in Scheme, I can confidently say: It's about the same level of difficult/pain. Which is to say that it's much too painful/annoying.
Though, I should say that Racket by all accounts from the literature has improved things massively, even going to so far as to implement "macro-based" type systems (search for "turnstile racket").
EDIT: Just a side point, but:
A witty saying proves nothing
- Voltaire
(No idea if Voltaire ever said that, but that's kind of the point.)
Having implemented a non-trivial 'macro' in camlp4 and likewise in Scheme, I can confidently say: It's about the same level of difficult/pain. Which is to say that it's much too painful/annoying.
Though, I should say that Racket by all accounts from the literature has improved things massively, even going to so far as to implement "macro-based" type systems (search for "turnstile racket").
EDIT: Just a side point, but:
(No idea if Voltaire ever said that, but that's kind of the point.)