prove me wrong

There isn't one popular technology that couldn't be better replaced by lisp.

makefiles, project files
xml
json
javascript
html
text markup
soap
embedded scripting
database schemas
database design and implementation
database query languages
constraint satisfaction
symbolic manipulation
artificial intelligence
self programming programs
mathematical programming languages
numerical programming languages
mixing any combination of the above seamlessly into a single language

People who think Lisp is especially good for AI don't understand AI. 40 years of failure is hard to argue with.

regular expressions?

concurrency

clojure doesn't count (JVM)

>>1
replace technology
Try with cars, batteries and wireless networks.

>>3
Certainly possible, as well as grammars.

>>4
Lisp has concurrency because of closure, as well as the other implementations that support concurrency. Don't confuse a language with an implementation.

>>5

It's the new thing to call popular pieces of software and methodologies ``technologies''.

OSX

>>7
Ok, Mr. ENTERPRISEY.

I want to give you some Fuck FUCK fuck

>>8

If you mean operating systems, lisp can do that too. In fact:

interprocess communication via trees in shared memory.
interprocess communication via serialized trees over a network.

be useful

>>11
It's marginally better at OSes than it is at AI.

PHP, duh

>>3,4
newLISP has PCRE and Cilk API built-in.

>There isn't one popular technology that couldn't be replaced by lisp.
True.
>There isn't one popular technology that couldn't be *better* replaced by lisp.
False.

It is true that you can replace most/any (I didn't read all of them) of those things with Lisp, because Lisp allows you to express pretty much anything, and usually rather well.

However, the formats/syntax we see today are specialized for their specific purposes, and are equal at all and better at some of the following things:
File size for the same representation
Difficulty to humans to comprehend
Efficiency to parse/execute/use

If you can refute this, that'd be interesting to see.

>>16

File size for the same representation
The one depends. In some cases it is an immediate improvement (I'm looking at you xml) and in others it isn't noticeable or not worth the drop in readability.

Difficulty to humans to comprehend
Lisp usually looses in comparison to specialized syntax.

Efficiency to parse/execute/use
It's hard to beat lisp at efficient parsing. Executing depends on the language. Full lisp has a large set of language features. But languages like C and C++ have encodings as parse trees, and can be represented with sexps. I wouldn't go too crazy there, but it does bring the advantage of full macros in the lower level languages, which is useful since that is where they are needed most.

But the one thing that lisp will always win at is integration. Where else could you define an equation and then have the compiler solve it for a variable and then use the value of that variable for the number of slots in a record in your database? Or write a virus that keeps its ast encoding and performs random functionality preserving mutations on its own code so that its distributed copies wont be detected by pattern matching the binaries?

>implying anything is better than javascript

>>16
DSL in *LISP* is the best. That renders all 3 your consern: file size of your DSL, DSL for your ants, DSL for your sysadmins.

>>18
If you weren't trolling, I would have killed you by now. SEPPLES FTW xD xD xD xD

To extend the lives of disks and drives.

>>16
makefiles, project files <= a Lisp program
xml < S-expressions
json <= S-expressions
javascript <= Scheme
(html == xml) < S-expressions
text markup < S-expressions
soap < Parentheses
embedded scripting < Embedded Scheme
database schemas < Scheme as a database
database design and implementation < Lisp
database query languages < S-expressions
constraint satisfaction < Scheme program
symbolic manipulation < DSL
artificial intelligence <= Scheme program
self programming programs == Lisp
mathematical programming languages <= ML in Lisp
numerical programming languages <= ML in Lisp
mixing any combination of the above seamlessly into a single language === Lisp

>>21
soap < Parentheses
And this is why lispers stink.

>>22
Yup, that's the joke!

html
xml

These aren't supposed to be programming languages, they're markup languages for displaying documents and holding information, and one of their main requirements is to be human readable.

Tell me, do you think lisp is human readable?

>>24
Yes.

I don't see what's so fucking hard to read about (b bold). <b>code</b> is as readable, but it's harder to parse and type.

>>24
do you think lisp is human readable?
Yes. One of the main things that aids readability is indentation. Lisp indents rather well, like anything.

>>25
HTML isn't programming, it's declarative markup. The main thing is the text; tags are for semantics and presentation. If you took a program (Lisp, C, whatever) and removed everything except string literals and numbers, it wouldn't be very useful or readable. However, if you remove all of the tags from an HTML document, you would get plain text.

I've always been interested in procedurally generating assets for games. It seems lisp will be my language of choice.

>>27
If you removed the S-expressions from ``Lisp ML'' code (a DSL that replaces SGML shit with S-expressions), you'd get plain text too.

Every markup language has to be processed by a parser in order to be useful.

IHBT

>>28

Go for it! But if you are just doing textures and models, you will probably find the most helpful things to be parameterizations of content, random number generators, and chaos. All of these can be done without lisp. If you are doing speech, text, and behavior however...

>>1
Proof: Lisp blurs borders, making it hard to market these tech as distinct products. Lisp code looks so uniform, your head becomes dizzy, hiding important details.

>>22
SOAP can't into RSYNC, or NNTP, LDAP, and MakeMyOwnProtocol FTM
(õ_ó)

I can't handle all these jimmies. Help me Oracle. Tell me who to sacrifice Today.
That's I heard.

>>1
assembly

>>34
BTDT
http://www.lispforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=622
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1620