> I apologise... the last reply I kinda retract, as you say - it was a bit silly. Thanks, I appreciate that. > I have to admit your posts came across as the o

> I apologise... the last reply I kinda retract, as you say - it was a bit silly. Thanks, I appreciate that. > I have to admit your posts came across as the old "My Language is As Good As Yours" argument, but it appears your a Lisper too? I'm well-versed in Lisp, but I don't typically choose it for personal or professional tasks for a number of reasons. > I have to also admit everything I have seen/heard says Lisp is the original self-modifying language and is damn good at it :) The original self-modifying code was assembly language (or, really, machine code). It's a useful trick when you're working with extremely constrained computers whose memories are measured in single digit kilobytes, but long ago was recognized as really difficult to use in writing quality software. Real self-modifying code, which means code that actually overwrites the instructions the processor will execute, makes it incredibly hard to reason about programs and debug the resulting software. Real self-modifying code was long ago relegated to the likes of Mel (<http://www.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel.html> http://www.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel.html>). As I understand it, most Lisp programmers simply mean that their system properly handles the replacement of most (all?) functions/methods/definitions at runtime, which is in large part true of Python as well. I open to being corrected by a Lisp programmer using a modern Lisp (hence my request for SBCL) to show an example of real self-modifying code, but I really don't expect that any will, because I don't think anyone's seriously written such code since I was out of elementary school.