Lisp. Lisp is the only language

Why there are other programming languages besides Lisp? With Lisp's macro system you can create any language you need ever. Small, big, finely tuned for your task. Supporting other languages means opposing progress and delaying the inevitable future. There should be only one language and myriad languages at the same time. The one language is Lisp.

>>161
That's because you don't understand lambda calculus. How the fuck you can claim any deep understanding of any Lisp then is beyond me.
Lisp is not based on lambda calculus.

Look, it's simple. When you want to write "x = expr; stuff ..." in an imperative fashion, you can rewrite it as "(lambda x: stuff ... )(expr)", in a pure functional fashion.

Oh my! You discovered functional programming! Too bad Python is imperative as fuck! Yes, it does have functools, yes, you can do fp with it, yes, it's best practices to separe functional code from imperative one and Yes, GvR hates functional programming, and I'd like to do something similiar to (define (f x) (lambda (y) (begin0 x (set! x (+ x y)))))

Is your mind blown?
Sure (no)
If it is, then shut the fuck up and reflect on how this shit is pretty obvious to anyone who understands lambda calculus
Then let me continue.
Yeah, yeah, and there's that scheme proposal #754 or something, which no one uses, ever. Because lispers are insecure dumb fucks who don't understand why exactly they have the power and are afraid to change anything lest they lose it.
We are happy with parentheses for a reason.
You are missing the point. Code monkeys are OK with VB.NET
Are OK with Java too, what's the point?
and are not OK with Lisp.
How can they be not OK with something they don't even know exists?
You have to admit that there are bad parts in Lisp, but you also can't, because yo'ure a fauxing fanatic.

yo'ure
Maybe you're right, I can't be objective on Lisp because I'm a Lisp elitist faggot who thinks it's the pure perfection and nothing will ever be as powerful. But Doctor Racket (see previous posts) was pretty objective, IMHO.
Try discussing with him, next time, instead of the fauxing fanatic that I am. (I'm serious, talk with him, you need a doctormight enjoy the conversation)
You don't know anything, Jon Snow.
You don't either.
No, we are comparing undead dogs to something which lives in the minds of the cultists only, by now. It can't eternal lie, it's vanished.
Haskell is not undead, it was a medium sized dog.
No need to backtrack, acknowledge the truth which you've seen already.
Then, why don't you let the thread die?