John Shutt would like to break the chains of semantics, e.g. using fexprs to reach under-the-hood to wrangle and mutate the vital organs of a previously meaningful subprogram. Such a technique is workable, but I believe it leads to monolithic, tightly coupled applications that are not harmonious with nature. I have just now found a portmanteau that properly conveys my opinion of the subject: frankenprogramming.I'm looking forward to John's reply. In the meantime, I have to say that I like to view this in a more relaxed way. As Ehud Lamm said:
Previously, regarding fexprs: John Shutt's blog
Strict abstraction boundaries are too limiting in practice. The good news is that one man's abstraction breaking is another's language feature.