>>in general it's harder to reason about transformable lists of code than it is about plain old objects and their methods. Well actually no. Other languages ma

>>in general it's harder to reason about transformable lists of code than it is about plain old objects and their methods. Well actually no. Other languages make it easier for beginners to get started, but they just keep you there. Because its harder to do that the advanced stuff in those languages. >>Almost every problem elegantly solved in lisp has a parallel elegant solution in Ruby (using blocks, dynamic method definition, or otherwise) and I generally find the resulting code both more maintainable as well as more readable. Its other way around. We solve trivial library stitching problems in other language, and the we try the same in Lisp and don't see the point. But then that is also a kind of mental handicap. You can do things beyond a point because tools are making it harder for you to keep going forward. And then you use Lisp with the same philosophy and don't see the point.