3 ms·

I don't want to devolve into any petty arguments about what makes a Lisp a "Lisp", since everybody has their own incompatible definition, but I will say writing

I don't want to devolve into any petty arguments about what makes a Lisp a "Lisp", since everybody has their own incompatible definition, but I will say writing Hy feels like writing Python with weird syntax, and it does not feel like writing Lisp with a huge, familiar ecosystem of libraries. I will give you this, though, you can have a taste macros with Hy, which of course are one of the cornerstones of different Lisps. With that said, I do not feel like one would accurately develop a feel for what Lisp is like (be it Common Lisp, Scheme, Racket, or Clojure) by using Hy.

aeturnum 4y ago
> I don't want to devolve into any petty arguments about what makes a Lisp a "Lisp", Very much agree! I shouldn't have framed it that way. I should have said: each time you make a hybrid language between approaches, there are new people who will try it out and may discover a new and exciting way to program. Some people, in hindsight, will certainly wish they had jumped further - but they can always do that in the future and some will only make the bigger jump after making a smaller one.