>>20
Exactly how am I full of shit?
You are only full of shit if you are suggesting the use of CL, as-is, as a replacement for, say, Python.
How is Common Lisp more limited than Python?
It isn't. Both of them have limited syntax. At least in CL, you can do away with most semantic limitations by using the language's built-in macro abilities -- however, the syntax problem remains. Python has good-enough syntax most of the time, but when it does itch, you can't just scratch it yourself, which is extremely annoying (at least to me). I've done a bit of Lisping and I do admit that I sometimes find myself missing various features from Lisp in other languages, such as its lists and recursion-centredness. Lisp semantics are beautiful, but the syntax leaves a lot to be desired. And no, macros can't fix the
((parens
)). No, I don't want to use a special plugin for a special IDE. No, I don't want to wait until an optical illusion (or a visual cortex malfunction) makes them disappear. Yes, I want operator precedence. Yes, I want operators. No, I don't want one for everything. Might as well write my own language or die trying -- it's not like I'm going to convince van Rossum (or any other BDFL) to fix their stupid shit.
Writing this post made me sad and angry so I'm going to get drunk. Later.