> But by allowing you to unquote literal functions, Janet makes it possible to write macros that are completely referentially transparent.

These lisp guys really get excited over very abstract things. If you say this to an average person on the street they will probably try to run away.

▲

bryanrasmussen an hour ago | parent | next [-]

you ever try to explain object oriented programming languages and their benefits to the "average person on the street"?

▲

rambrrest an hour ago | parent [-]

somehow i also never got the idea around these languages like lisp. I remember i studied them in school - but i quickly forgot and never got around to relearning it.

	▲	zelphirkalt 27 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Probably depends on whom you are asking. For me the essence is (1) having functions or procedures as the basic building blocks, not classes. (2) Having all the utility and higher order functions you need to deal with the functions and procedures first idea. (3) Having a very powerful syntax, that allows great semantic editing and is never ambiguous. Oh and can actually be extended in useful ways, without having to wait for a committee to decide upon "the one syntax to rule them all".
	▲	xigoi 33 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The idea is that instead of having to learn tens of different syntactic constructs with subtle and often arbitrary differences, you just have parentheses and use them to build everything.

▲

prerok 4 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Average programmer too /j

Frankly, though, I think lispy community has benefited from being smaller. For example, even though the now ancient Design Patterns already warned programmers to prefer composition over inheritance, the OO programmers still created 15 levels deep hierarchies.