3 ms·

Got to this late, but other commenters have already pointed out why this is wrong. While this is unfounded (I have no sources), LISP is quite possibly the most

Got to this late, but other commenters have already pointed out why this is wrong. While this is unfounded (I have no sources), LISP is quite possibly the most flexible higher level language ever invented, I would caution against betting against it in the future. Saying that it's the most flexible higher language ever invented might not actually amount to much -- I'm sure there's actually a small subset of features/points-in-the-language-that-allow-for-user-modifications that you need to achieve such high flexibility, but figured it was worth saying. [EDIT] - My wording of the original post is sloppy. Where I say Lisp, I mean the dialect of Lisp that is Common Lisp.

reikonomusha 11y ago
Your argument doesn't add anything really. You can make anything in any reasonable language. When people say "you can add X to Common Lisp" or "you can make X in Common Lisp", they usually mean that you can integrate such a feature in Lisp. If you mean "you can write a compiler in Lisp", then, obviously. But you can do that in C++ too. Not a single reply has demonstrated that you can effectively and reasonably add those features (to their fullest extent) to Lisp. They all replied saying that you can do things like write a new language (e.g., Shen), perhaps by using Common Lisp as your implementation language.
- sklogic 11y ago
  You cannot write a compiler that integrates into your language in C++ or Haskell. And it is trivial in Lisp, just wrap a compiler into a macro. For example, my typical workflow heavily depends on Prolog blended into Lisp. I also use an ML implementation, also blended into Lisp seamlessly, and a subset of a Haskell-like language (lazy and strictly typed), also tightly integrated with Lisp, to a degree that it can access Lisp or ML local variables defined around the Haskell code block. You cannot do this in any language which does not have proper macros.

reikonomusha 11y ago

Your argument doesn't add anything really. You can make anything in any reasonable language. When people say "you can add X to Common Lisp" or "you can make X in Common Lisp", they usually mean that you can integrate such a feature in Lisp. If you mean "you can write a compiler in Lisp", then, obviously. But you can do that in C++ too. Not a single reply has demonstrated that you can effectively and reasonably add those features (to their fullest extent) to Lisp. They all replied saying that you can do things like write a new language (e.g., Shen), perhaps by using Common Lisp as your implementation language.

sklogic 11y ago
You cannot write a compiler that integrates into your language in C++ or Haskell. And it is trivial in Lisp, just wrap a compiler into a macro. For example, my typical workflow heavily depends on Prolog blended into Lisp. I also use an ML implementation, also blended into Lisp seamlessly, and a subset of a Haskell-like language (lazy and strictly typed), also tightly integrated with Lisp, to a degree that it can access Lisp or ML local variables defined around the Haskell code block. You cannot do this in any language which does not have proper macros.