> For example, Lisp macros are amazing. BUT... > this is not good for communicating code in big > teams. I don't know what this means, how is this any differ

> For example, Lisp macros are amazing. BUT... > this is not good for communicating code in big > teams. I don't know what this means, how is this any different than any other function ? You document it, use it.. I think whoever has said that macros are a problem in teams is imagining problems. > Or hot code reloading, which sounds like a > powerful concept except that companies would > rather log and document their codebase. It also > makes it challenging to keep track of the > state. You do the same you would for every language, you have test suites that exercise the code that you need and they need to pass. All code needs to pass on both the local system and CI, again a non issue. > If you force teams not to use macros This would be like forcing C++ programmers not to use objects, you could do it but you'd be doing it wrong. There are many things to pick on common lisp for, but these are not them. Start with CLOS being to too customizable, the loop macro being its own DSL, and the REPL/live image based development making you annoyed that other repls are considered equal.