6 ms·

You can see that in even ancient Lisp discussions. The article shows a macro that transforms to a Common Lisp-style LOOP, but LOOP is often criticized as having

You can see that in even ancient Lisp discussions. The article shows a macro that transforms to a Common Lisp-style LOOP, but LOOP is often criticized as having too much of a DSL syntax and there's plenty of old debates on if it is better to use things like REDUCE or other predecessors of LOOP instead of learning the complexities of LOOP. (On the other hand, LOOP is very powerful, and its mini-query language can relatively succinctly describe a lot of usefully optimized loops.)

Jtsummers 3y ago
The LOOP facility is also often more efficient than stringing together map, reduce, and other functions. Unless you use something like SERIES (or a similar package) which can perform stream fusion for efficiency, but that's not the norm (I highly recommend exploring it though if you want to use the map/reduce style and want efficient results).