News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by feelsboutlisps on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @02:35PM (#12491030)
I don't think you can put those things on the same scale. I think it's telling that you dismiss Lisp's syntax like it's unimportant rather than acknowledging that it's the several hundred lb elephant in the room whenever it comes to talking about lisps.

What I'm arguing is that Lispers say that all the parens and lack of other, more expressive constructs are worth it because you get macros. I'm arguing that's a bad trade-off, because 1. that's a big sacrifice, 2. macros aren't a win.

Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by qwertyuiop924 on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @05:57AM (#12495362)
Well, the macros and read macros mean that you can "get back" those constructs.