| ▲ | nathan_compton 7 hours ago | |
Big lisp guy here. Have written tens of thousands of lines of scheme, at least, and common lisp. But I don't get this "Lisp is so much better than everything else," thing. It feels very jejune to me. Most lisp programmers barely use macros and most programming languages these days have most of the features of Lisp that originally made it useful (automatic memory management, repls, dynamic typing*, and even meta-programming if you really want it). I do think that most common languages are mediocre but mediocrity is just how humans are. -- If I had one thing I want fixed about Scheme it would be the dynamic typing, especially since many Schemes compile aggressively. Finding bugs is much harder when your apparently dynamic language has compiled out everything useful for understanding an error condition. Most of those mistakes could be caught at compile time. | ||
| ▲ | antonvs 2 hours ago | parent [-] | |
> If I had one thing I want fixed about Scheme it would be the dynamic typing The ML family or Haskell fit that bill. Both OCaml and Haskell also have an equivalent of macro systems. So does e.g. Rust, for that matter. I agree with your main point. The attitude you’re referring to is largely a relic of a previous era, at this point. | ||