> No, but it guarantees that, at least in theory, such a parser could be made available. By that standard, all languages are equivalent. That's true in a rath

> No, but it guarantees that, at least in theory, such a parser could be made available. By that standard, all languages are equivalent. That's true in a rather meaningless sense (Turing equivalence), but very few people think that Haskell is the same as C. > it is merely laziness, minimalism, or coincidence that causes many to not. The reason doesn't matter. If you don't have reasonable "out of the box" support for manipulating ASTs, it isn't part of the language. This cuts both ways - few lisp implementations have reasonable libraries. > It's just not true that Lisp is the only game in town for AST support Feel free to show how ordinary {pick your language} programmers could implement and use something like the LOOP macro. Compare with how easily that can be done in lisp. Ease (like speed) matters.