oh, but I'd definitely use lisp ! If it had static types, easy simd support, complete Qt integration, value types and mandatory unboxed primitives, if it was possible to define non-trivial compile-time assertions and type checks (though maybe some LISP dialects can ? are there statically-typed lisps with the ability for arbitrary type computations ?), if normal programs with normal libraries in the LISP ecosystems could be entirely written without a GC, etc etc... and I'm sure I'm forgetting the other half of the absolute bare minimum of my requirements for the programming languages I use for my day-to-day tasks.
Saying that parsing an AST is on its own a justification for using LISP, is very much like saying that one should use smalltalk or erlang instead of $LANGUAGE every time they implement a message-passing system: at best worth of a shrug. There's a reason why all the projects listed here: https://github.com/celtera/avendish#future-directions are C++ :)
Saying that parsing an AST is on its own a justification for using LISP, is very much like saying that one should use smalltalk or erlang instead of $LANGUAGE every time they implement a message-passing system: at best worth of a shrug. There's a reason why all the projects listed here: https://github.com/celtera/avendish#future-directions are C++ :)