>>68
From the source he posted some time ago (
http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1293351605/27,28), it was CL.
I have no problems with him implementing a DSL, it's fun and a good exercise, every Lisper has made at least a simple DSL in his career.
I envy his DSL, it seems to have done a really good work with it and should be proud of it, but he shouldn't post his code written in it and say ``I wrote x in Lisp'', when it's
clearly a DSL.
What makes him appear like a stupid is his stubborness on the fact that that's just Lisp, plain Lisp, giving reasons like ``it has lists and sexps''. Of course, a DSL
have to give a way to communicate with the underlining language/system, that's the purpose of its existence, the fact that his language can communicate with the underlining CL implementations only strengthens the motivations to call it a DSL.
He should just post the complete implementation and then saying ``I wrote x in my Lisp DSL''.