Have you read your PFDS today?

Purely Functional Data Structures
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/theses/okasaki.pdf

When a C programmer needs an efficient data structure for a particular problem, he or she can often simply look one up in any of a number of good textbooks or handbooks. Unfortunately, programmers in functional languages such as Standard ML or Haskell do not have this luxury. Although some data structures designed for imperative languages such as C can be quite easily adapted to a functional setting, most cannot, usually because they depend in crucial ways on assignments, which are disallowed, or at least discouraged, in functional languages. To address this imbalance, we describe several techniques for designing functional data structures, and numerous original data structures based on these techniques, including multiple variations of lists, queues, double-ended queues, and heaps, many supporting more exotic features such as random access or efficient catenation.

In addition, we expose the fundamental role of lazy evaluation in amortized functional data structures. Traditional methods of amortization break down when old versions of a data structure, not just the most recent, are available for further processing. This property is known as persistence, and is taken for granted in functional languages. On the surface, persistence and amortization appear to be incompatible, but we show how lazy evaluation can be used to resolve this conflict, yielding amortized data structures that are efficient even when used persistently. Turning this relationship between lazy evaluation and amortization around, the notion of amortization also provides the first practical techniques for analyzing the time requirements of non-trivial lazy programs.
 
Finally, our data structures offer numerous hints to programming language designers, illustrating the utility of combining strict and lazy evaluation in a single language, and providing non-trivial examples using polymorphic recursion and higher-order, recursive modules.

>>34

Working in Lisp lets you work with true abstraction at the [meta-]expression/declaration level all the way down to assembly code, and all the way up to however high you care to get, without writing fucking inline asm.

If you don't deal with inline asm, you are trusting someone else's code to generate asm and you have no ability to improve their generators or add your own abstractions that translate to asm.

lol, again, have fun playing with bytes.

I write programs to play with bytes for me.

>>47
It's actually the opposite. You've imposed the artificial constraint that your program must use GC, when it can get by without it. Adding that constraint leads to suboptimal programs. I still have the computer do work for me, but most of that is done at compile time.