3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou 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.