> But is Lisp more productive than all other languages? Not really, but you can make Lisp very productive. https://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/karkare/courses/20

> But is Lisp more productive than all other languages? Not really, but you can make Lisp very productive. https://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/karkare/courses/2010/cs653/Papers/hudak_haskell_sw_prototype.pdf https://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/karkare/courses/2010/cs653/... See the table for the development time. Relational Lisp (a Common Lisp with support for relations as an extension) had by far the shortest development time... since the particular language has a high-level look&feel, there is also less documentation needed - it might be more like an executable spec. > instead of using macros, could the code have been restructured in other ways that would mean far less code being written? By a custom code generator, perhaps. But that's a tool on top of C++. Another stage. Another tool... > Too often it is declared that Lisp is better than "every" other language That's a nonsense believe. 'better' is not a quality we can measure or even argue about.