Lisp Improvement

Any attempt to improve Lisp will result in horribly implemented shit.

Examples: Clojure, Arc, Chicken, Racket

The jews are after me.

Two of the four examples do not try to improve Lisp and do not suck.

>>3
They are dialects. There would be no dialects if there were no problems in the other language. Duh.

there is no root Lisp language that dialects spring from, Lisp began as an eval loop and grew into a family of languages. Both CL and Scheme try to be the lowest common denominator but both are a long way off from what anyone would term as a language standard

>>5
CL
lowest common denominator

...

>>6
That's not how you quote.

So CL is good? Fuck yourself, fag.

>>8
CL is weird but pretty fast. And since quicklisp the library situation is much better.
And the ALL-CAPS output and general weirdness of dealing with a REPL makes me feel like I'm a console cowboy in a cyberpunk novel or something, which is pretty fun.

>>5
Yes because CL and Scheme totally came out of fucking nowhere.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/recursive/recursive.html

>>9
CL is weird? And yeah, Quicklisp is one of the best things that has ever happened to modern CL.

I like Clojure. The [] and {} syntax is real nice.

>>1
Clojure, Arc
These are nice.

Chicken, Racket
These are evil, because of begin-for-syntax syntax-e syntax->datum syntax->list syntax-property #' (void) quote-syntax datum->syntax syntax-parameter-value syntax-rule raise-syntax-error internal-definition-context? syntax-parameterize make-set!-transformer prop:set!-transformer free-identifier=? syntax-local-value/immediate syntax-local-transforming-module-provides? syntax-local-module-defined-identifiers syntax-local-module-required-identifiers make-require-transformer (require (lib "stxparam.ss" "mzlib")) syntax? (require mzlib/defmacro) define-macro syntax-local-lift-expression (require racket/stxparam-exptime) make-rename-transformer syntax-local-require-certifier make-parameter-rename-transformer syntax-local-value define-syntax-parameter make-provide-transformer syntax-local-provide-certifier syntax-source local-expand/capture-lifts local-transformer-expand/capture-lifts syntax-local-lift-values-expression syntax-local-lift-module-end-declaration syntax-local-lift-require syntax-local-lift-provide syntax-local-name syntax-local-context syntax-local-phase-level syntax-local-module-exports syntax-local-get-shadower syntax-local-certifier syntax-transforming? syntax-local-introduce make-syntax-introducer exn:fail:syntax make-syntax-delta-introducer syntax-local-make-delta-introducer syntax-case define-syntax syntax-rules with-syntax syntax-position syntax-line syntax-column ...

>>1
horribly implemented
not horribly designed?

>>14
not really on topic. You're arguing against Scheme, not against new Lisps.

>>15
You're arguing against Scheme, not against new Lisps.
Racket made it even worse: instead of dealing with plain symbols, you're dealing with these syntax values (called “identifiers” in this case) that are essentially a symbol and some opaque information that represents the lexical scope for its source. In several syntax-case systems this is the only difference from defmacro macros, but in the Racket case this applies to everything — identifiers, numbers, other immediate constants, and even function applications, etc — they are all wrapped.

>>16
seems like the logical conclusion of Scheme to me.

One can argue that common lisp is so shitty that any change to it will be improvement.