I haven’t written any kind of lisp for years, though I used to do so professionally (Clojure) and have been moderately successful getting some reusable stuff op

I haven’t written any kind of lisp for years, though I used to do so professionally (Clojure) and have been moderately successful getting some reusable stuff open sourced in that context (every time I look back at the “biggest” of these contributions it’s always amusing because it was not much more than a relatively simple macro). I’d love to write more lisp, and like the article author I’m drawn to Racket, but I’ve just got very little bandwidth for exploring it further. Even so, lisp generally is something I advocate learning especially to mentees, because learning it (in author’s sense pretty much exactly as expressed, but with no strong feelings towards static typing at the time) was so transformative for me. I don’t need to write lisp to reap most of its benefits now… I write code in whatever language with the same attitude the author describes: mostly operate on values, abstract and isolate mutations with particularly high value, enjoy reasoning about code easily. And I’d add: recognize things which are like sexprs for what they are as things you can treat like sexprs because that’s more or less what they are. Granted I’m not posting anything to HN, front page or otherwise besides comments. But I’m still inclined to praise lisp even a few years out from the last time I actually wrote any. Because it’s bound to be as foundational for others as it has been for me.