Why is LISP the best language?

Being able to re-define the language within itself is pretty neat. That's about it.

I guess it is easier to write bug-free(er) big programms in Haskell, right?

>>60582965
It's also a very simple language and very easy to parse because it's practically just like writing syntax trees directly.

>>60582965
That sounds awful if your colleges are pajeets.

>>60582915
It isn't. It was an interesting tangent, the cs equivalent of mathematical curiosities that serve no purpose outside of lessons on other concepts. You can learn a hell of a lot programming in lisp, and implementing lisp, but it's like a training bra. Nobody should be interested in you, until you've gotten to that stage, and grown out of it. If they are, there is something really wrong with them, and they're probably trying to exploit you.

I want to get paid to write Lisp - what would be the best option? I am a really disciplined programmer and fared well also when using dynamicly typed langs such as Smalltalk.

>>60583189
looooool

>>60583189
Time travel

>>60583189
>Paid
>Lisp

Does not compute

>>60583189
Suicide. You have better chance getting employed as agda developer

Why did macros deprecate fexps?

Fexps were perfect. Using fexps is exactly like adding special cases to eval. They're simple; it's just a normal function where you call eval on what you want to evaluate instead of everything being evaluated by default.

Macros are about some pattern-matching shit and scheme's are absolutely non-sensical. Sure them being hygienic is nice but you solve that with lexical scope not a shitty pattern system like syntax-case.

Tell my why /g/

>>60587578
You can implement fexps with macros

>>60583189
you basically have 1 option: Clojure.

File: 1489908327137.jpg (460KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 1280x1280px

>>60583077
Emacs would like to have a word with you