Why aren't you using s7 scheme as your Lisp?

A single C source file.

A SINGLE C SOURCE FILE

COMPILE IT NOW

You must define-macro immediately and urgently.

Why aren't you using awklisp as your lisp?

A single Awk source file.

A SINGLE AWK SOURCE FILE!

INTERPRET IT NOW!

You must define Church numerals immediately and urgently.

>>2

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/lang/lisp/impl/awk/

Because it is scheme. Nothing useful has ever been done in scheme.

>>4

as your Lisp

That's alright, because nothing useful has ever been done in LITHP either.

Anything could be done with LISHP.
Yet nothing ever has been done and never will be done with LISHP.
Such is the mystery of USELESS PARENTHESES)))

Why does every respected professional with high IQs use Lisp and not huskel? Because huskel is shit

http://bbs.progrider.org/prog/read/1407149096

It's like 60K lines long though.

>>9

I'm sure you have SUFFICIENT MEMORY

>>7
Why do cows fly? Because they don't.

A Lishp idiot starts to think about actually writing programs and his first conclusion is that rich static typing is the best:

http://www.greghendershott.com/fear-of-macros/Robust_macros__syntax-parse.html

4. Use Typed Racket.
Even better, Typed Racket can catch usage mistakes up-front at compile time.

He's a fucking genius by LITHP standards, I say.

be a man and recognize that Racket (formerly known as PLT-Scheme) is the one and only true scheme. the one interpreter. the one and only noteworthy LISP dialect. the tarantula. the nexus of our structure.

yes, we're tempted by fluxus and extempore, yes there are persistent ontological problems with Racket's approach but NO there is no better alternative. Racket, fwiw, is the best we've got.

>>13
U MENA TYPED RACKET

racket doesn't need to be typed, that's up to you magn