>>69
I disagree, but only slightly. The problem is that it's hard to tell what is a DSL and what is the original language, especially if the original language allows (and even encourages) macros. After how many macros does a Lisp stop being a Lisp and become a DSL? Does removing the parentheses and putting something else in place (
do/end,
{}/[], etc.) automatically makes the language a DSL?
Personally, I'd say that the only way to tell apart a DSL from the original is whether you can still escape into the original language. I'm not sure though...
I think that the fact that he can say ``I wrote x in Lisp'' should not anger
/lisp/ers; quite on the contrary, they should feel proud of the power and extensibility of their favourite language. I think the real reason why some are angry is because
that guy still refuses to publish his macros and documentation. The frustration experience by the aforementioned is akin to that of showing a child a very interesting toy then taking it away from them.