

Boilerplate code says a lot about a language... - lisporama
http://lispy.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/boilerplate-code-says-a-lot-about-a-language/
"That's the important point: the  difference between merely implementing something in a language and embedding something in a language so that you don't lose the original power of the language. Lisp is a lousy language for doing any particular problem; what it's good for is figuring out the right language that you want and embedding that in Lisp. That's the real power to this approach to design."  -- Hal Abelson
======
hga
The AntiPatterns book says (without citation, although this seems to match my
personal observations) that only 1 in 5 programmers "get" abstraction.

This has a lot of implications; they pointed out the one for "democratic"
design processes (those with a clue get outvoted, thus the architecture of so
many systems is garbage), but this obviously extends to this "LISP is a ball
of mud" (Moses) approach of designing and implementing a small language in
which to program most of your stuff.

And in any language. LISP is used as an example since this is its natural
style of use and it's lot easier, but if you can't get the proper abstractions
agreed upon in the first place, it matters little how good or bad the language
you'll then try to implement them in, boiler plate style or LISP....

