2 ms·

Heh: my initial thought was that Go is nothing like Lisp - Lisp has the most powerful metaprogramming around thanks to its macro system, while Go doesn't even h

by comex 10y ago

Heh: my initial thought was that Go is nothing like Lisp - Lisp has the most powerful metaprogramming around thanks to its macro system, while Go doesn't even have C-level macros, or any of the type-system features some languages use as an alternative approach to metaprogramming. As a result Lisp is notoriously unopinionated, while Go is very opinionated. Lisp is functional, Go is aggressively imperative. And so on. But I guess the languages share some things: no complex type system, fast compiles, emphasis on simplicity in general, no need for an IDE, old fashioned feel (no, really, that's not a diss necessarily)... and at least Go has reflection.

junke 10y ago
> Lisp is functional Not really, multi-paradigm. > and at least Go has reflection. Go is introspective. Lisp has both introspection (e.g. find-class allows to look at existing classes) and intercession (e.g. ensure-class creates/modifies a class at runtime).
- comex 10y ago
  > Not really, multi-paradigm. Yeah, that's probably a better way to describe it; it certainly ain't Haskell. But Go really doesn't want you even to use things like map and filter.