>>21
Im starting to like the shitposting on /prog/ better than the lispfags, at least shitposters come up with original ideas instead of droning out the same shit over and over. OK, lets try this AGAIN
If you don't know how to use the features offered in lisp for practical problem solving, then you are simply not a competent lisp programmer.
wow!! no shit sherlock!! you have to know the features of a language in order to be competent in that language....WHO WOULD HAVE KNOWN?!?!
>It isn't hard to find a solution for something in lisp where other languages fall short, although these applications are usually very special purpose and narrow.
Lisp is a metalanguage...SO FUCKING WHAT?? BNF is a metalanguage, regexps are a metalanguage. People use metalanguages when they are required. The fact that you think that Lisp is superior to all other languages because it can emulate all other languages shows what a dipshit you are.
But one could argue that lisp always falls short with its syntax and readability.
Yeah, you could argue that, because most people understand that using a metalanguage requires constantly building scaffolding and making everything from scratch. That doesnt make it a better language, that just means its more adaptable and composable in regards to syntax.
Im sick of hearing people rattle on and on about Lisp like it is the ultimate programming that humans could ever attain. The fact is that you are nothing but a parrot squaking about what competent programmers already know, you somehow think the power of Lisp is your little secret that no one understands. Just fuck off already