Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

15
  • 8
    Syntax can be an issue if it significantly affects readability or writeability. I don't think that's the case for Lisp. A good editor or IDE can do good enough syntax highlighting and paren matching to not be a big deal. Commented Oct 4, 2010 at 22:36
  • 4
    Also, I've only used Lisp a little (Common Lisp), and the general feel I got was that #2 was the biggest benefit to Lisp. Maybe I'm thinking in the wrong paradigm, but I don't think I've ever had a situation where self-modifying code was necessary. If you have a specific reason to use it, then yes, but otherwise the macros seem like the real killer feature. Edit: Just realized these are, in fact, the same feature. Commented Oct 4, 2010 at 22:37
  • 3
    @Matt: Yep. FWIW, I recently ran into Nemerle, a C#-ish CLR experimental language with macros. nemerle.org. It's worth poking at some point I think, just for the experience. Commented Oct 5, 2010 at 4:59
  • 2
    "Pragmatism. CL is designed to get stuff done by working professionals. Most functional languages aren't, as a rule.": I do not agree with this statement. I am very interested in Lisp and trying to dedicate some time to learn it. But I find other FP languages also very effective for "getting things done", at least this has been my experience with Scala and Haskell up to now. Commented Oct 29, 2012 at 13:01
  • 1
    "CL is designed to get stuff done by working professionals. Most functional languages aren't, as a rule.": Can you elaborate on this? Especially on the second part of the sentence. Can you name a few examples? Commented Nov 25, 2013 at 10:29