3 ms·
> unicode is an issue that should really be solved at language level with lisp, you don't need anything to be built in "at the language level" because you can
by xlnt 18y ago
> unicode is an issue that should really be solved at language level
with lisp, you don't need anything to be built in "at the language level" because you can modify the language much better than with python or ruby. many "built-in" lisp features, that would be language-level in other languages, are just built-in macros, and you could have written them yourself exactly the same. for example, loops are done this way.
- gaius 18y agoWhat you say is true, of course, but at the same time it's true of any Turing-complete languages, and therefore, meaningless. I'm not a bad engineer because I don't have time to start every project from the bare metal. Runtime and libraries make a huge difference in the real world. Sure I'd love to spend the time really diving deep and making LISP into the perfect DSL for me, but the truth is, I can just use Python and go.
- xlnt 18y agoit's not the same in any turing-complete language. lisp makes adding new "language level features" easy, and python makes it hard. i'm not saying you should always use lisp for everything. but for this particular issue lisp has a major advantage.