News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ask HN: Production Lisp in 2020? by tolsen718 on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @09:31AM (#23234665)
I don't think another language's macros can match lisp macros unless the other language is also homoiconic.
Re:Ask HN: Production Lisp in 2020? by gnufx on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @04:51PM (#23240028)
Latter-day Dylan is infix with a Scheme-y macro system: https://opendylan.org/books/dpg/macros.html

Cue arguments, I guess, about whether Scheme is a Lisp, whatever their standards say.

Re:Ask HN: Production Lisp in 2020? by neutronicus on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @11:20AM (#23235804)
Clojure is weakly heteroiconic and seems to have rough parity
Re:Ask HN: Production Lisp in 2020? by fiddlerwoaroof on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @12:02PM (#23236351)
Clojure is “homoiconic”: Clojure source code is represented in terms of the data structures Clojure applications manipulate. There’s nothing preventing Common Lisp from having a similar surface syntax either: a couple read macros on [ and {, and a library of normal macros would be sufficient and could probably be written over a weekend.
Re:Ask HN: Production Lisp in 2020? by p_l on Thursday May 21, 2020 @03:59PM (#23264225)
In fact, since Common Lisp "source code" is NOT defined in terms of text but data structures (that happen to have standard serialization/deserialization) and that's the level that macros work on, you could theoretically even make semi-algolish syntax and still keep CL's macro system.

It would just look weird as fuck.

Re:Ask HN: Production Lisp in 2020? by fiddlerwoaroof on Thursday May 21, 2020 @10:13PM (#23268042)
Re:Ask HN: Production Lisp in 2020? by p_l on Sunday May 24, 2020 @05:55AM (#23290448)
That's one example, not as crazy as what's possible. Though I have to say I dislike the indent based blocks :/
Re:Ask HN: Production Lisp in 2020? by alehander42 on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @11:52AM (#23248331)
i am not sure: you can have "quoting" without this property