>>97 You could write an interpreter in anything for a Lisp, because it's easy to write and better than whatever fuckpile you started with anyway, so whatever is underneath is meaningless.
Name:
Anonymous2016-07-22 7:48
Clojure runs on the Java virtual machine and as a result integrates with Java and fully supports calling Java code from Clojure, and Clojure code can be called from Java also.
Those of you who are familiar with more traditional functional languages, such as Lisp or Scheme, will recognize that functions in JScript are fundamentally the Lambda Calculus in fancy dress. (The august Waldemar Horwat — who was at one time the lead Javascript developer at AOL-Time-Warner-Netscape — once told me that he considered Javascript to be just another syntax for Common Lisp. I’m pretty sure he was being serious; Waldemar’s a hard core language guy and a heck of a square dancer to boot.)
Since Lisp is just an AST, any language as transformable into its AST is "just another syntax" for the same thing. But Javascript has different and distinctly more terrible semantics, and almost no non-Lisp languages have direct AST programmability.
The fact that he said Common Lisp specifically, and not just some vague notion of Lisp, means he's absolutely delusional. Where are the dynamic bindings? Where are the multimethods? Where are the standard macros, reader macros, or compiler macros? Oh right, there's NO SYNTAX FOR IT, much less functionality.