
Lisp, too, is mainstream  - nickb
http://www.lispcast.com/drupal/node/54
======
ced
Lisp (1) metaprogramming sucks. I've got a closure. Why can't I know over
which variables? Why can't I know which function called foo (ie.: access the
stack)? Why can't I know what the fields of my struct are? Even Python knows
how to do _that_ one.

I want my macro code, expanded here, to be aware of that other bit of macro
code expanded in that other function.

Yeah, there are work-arounds. I've got my own defstruct, my own defun, my own
everything. And this morning, I started writing a code walker. With anguish in
my heart over a lifetime of debugging the monster that was born today.

Lisp is not an acceptable Lisp, indeed.

(1) That would be Common Lisp and what I know of Scheme. I'll be glad to know
there's something better out there.

~~~
stassats
> I've got my own defstruct, my own defun, my own everything.

So is Lisp, a programmable programming language.

~~~
ced
See, there is this better-than-Lisp language in the sky, that's not made yet,
call it sky-lang. I state that every sufficiently complicated Lisp program
contains an ad-hoc, half-broken version of sky-lang. I don't want that. I want
the real thing.

Every language is "programmable", that's what the Greenspun rule says. Just
because Lisp does it better than the others doesn't mean that it's actually
close to what can be done.

~~~
icey
I think the "Lisp as a (potential) blub" meme is starting to catch on. You're
starting to see some people release alternatives that are looking fairly
viable. Two that are frequently discussed here are Arc and Clojure. Then there
are guys like Mark Tarver, who are working on things like Qi to improve Lisp.

I think it's great to see that after 50 years, "Lisp, the idea" is still
growing.

------
jimbokun
I would like to add Clojure to the languages discussed.

It add macros and metaprogramming and real functional programming to Java,
while keeping the library support and deployability. So, as other programming
languages borrow what is good about Lisp, Clojure is a Lisp that has borrowed
much of what is good about Java.

------
pavelludiq
Python is a little bit more practical than lisp. I'm learning scheme now, but
I'll stick with python as my main language.

------
gruseom
_But the corporate manager will say: if everyone writes their own syntax, my
programmers can't read each other's code._

I know it's a deliberate straw man, but still: the corporate manager who says
this doesn't understand what "his"/"her" programmers actually do.

~~~
globalrev
Plus shortening programs should on the contrary make programs easier to read,
all they have to do is choose reasonable names for their macros.

