vernacular VS with-c-syntax

there is also https://github.com/lisp-maintainers/defstar for providing more ergonomic type declarations inline in definitions

And this is another thing I'm not sure how to explain, I thought CL is surely more verbose and ugly than python for small scripts, but maybe it's macros will make it cleaner for building large systems. But then when I started writing actual programs, even small programs without any of my own macros, I generally use about 30% less LoC than in python... I've thought about making sly/slime like support for python (built on ipython with autoreload extension) or ruby (with it's fairly new low-overhead debug gem). But at the end of the day support for these things will always be incomplete and a hack compared to CL where it was designed from the start to support it, they run 20-100x slower than CL, and imo their runtime metaprogramming is harder to reason about than CL which is mostly compile time metaprogramming. When I've had to dig into some CL library, which is a lot more often than in those languages because it has 10000x fewer users so of course I will be first to run into some issue, it has generally been easy to understand what is going on and fix it, compared to large codebases in other languages.

Regarding "modern type-safe language", languages with expressive type systems, rust, ocaml, haskell, typescript, etc, can give really confusing type errors, when you get into generics and traits and more expressive stuff. I'm not convinced it's a better development experience than a dynamically typed languages where values have simple types, and when you get a type error you see the actual contents of the variable that is the wrong type and state of the program, at least in the case of CL where the stack isn't unwound on error and runtime is kind of compile-time as you're running all code as you write it. But mostly this sort of interactive development is very hard to implement in static languages, I'm not aware of any that does it. For example even in static langs like ocaml that have a repl through a bytecode interpreter, simple things don't work like say you pass some function as an event handler, and then update the function. As you passed efectively a function pointer to the old definition, rather than a symbol name like lisp, it will be calling the original function not the new version. But the main issue is that efficient staticly typed languages the type system is all at compile time, type information doesn't exist at runtime, which is great for performance, but means you don't get the ability to introspect on your running program like you do in CL and elixir, which personally I value more than full compile-time type checking.

Would I like some new language or heavy modification of existing language runtime that provides the best of everything? of course, but I also realize that it's a huge amount of work and won't happen with 10 years, while I can have a nice experience hacking away in CL and emacs right now. And ultimately CL is an extremely flexible language and I think it'll be less work to build on CL than to provide a CL like runtime for some other language. For example projects really pushing the edge there is Coalton described above. While personally I prefer dynamicly typed for general application programming I think Coalton could be great for compilers, parsing some protocol, or writing some subparts of your program in. And vernacular (https://github.com/ruricolist/vernacular) which explores bringing racket's lang and macro system to CL. For more standard CL code, using extremely common and widely used libraries like alexandria, serapeum, trivia, etc, already makes CL into a fairly modern and ergonomic language to write.

I have a project to do that, https://github.com/ruricolist/vernacular, although I'm not working on it right now.

> but what sub-languages are we talking about? I only see a library with helper functions and macros. That's Common Lisp, not a derivative.

If your language is a DSL factory, the line between your language and DSLs naturally blurs. If https://github.com/y2q-actionman/with-c-syntax exists, does it mean that C is a DSL of Common Lisp, given a good enough standard library? If https://github.com/calyau/maxima exists, does it mean that Maxima is just Common Lisp with more maths? If https://github.com/Shen-Language/shen-cl and https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton/ exist, does it mean that Shen and Coalton are just a fancy way of writing Common Lisp in an immutable way? If https://github.com/froggey/Iota exists and we can play sdlquake on Mezzano, does it mean that LLVM-IR is a dialect of Common Lisp?

The above series of questions is not meant to be fully credible - it's meant to be food for thought.

More to the point of how simple (and easy) defmacro is compared to syntax-case and syntax-rules, I like another fare post: https://fare.livejournal.com/189741.html If you're as smart as fare, it "isn't too hard to translate it".

Though I concede this case could be analogous to trying to write a Doubly Linked List in Rust. So I'd more like to see a concrete case you have in mind where the tradeoffs are squarely against CL. Like, the loop macro is more complicated than any I have written myself, but you can break it down, and it's not that bad -- I think Norvig's version is pretty neat to study: https://norvig.com/paip/loop.lisp This project (and it's not the only one!) adding C syntax to CL https://github.com/y2q-actionman/with-c-syntax I think is more complicated than loop, and is sort of where I'd put the level of "complicated things" at that I'd like to see an example from the Scheme world that clearly shows defmacro's deficiencies on some metrics. (Fewer bugs? Easier to add new features to? Shorter code? Faster performance either at compile time or runtime or both? Easier to understand or faster to implement for people with similar levels of skill in the language?)

Lisp has served as an inspiration to so many programming language designs, Javascript included, that saying a language feature isn't really unique to Lisp is a bit like saying that The Lord of the Rings is just a bunch of fantasy clichés. It's true in some sense, but it also conveys a deeply flawed understanding.

Here[1] is a fun example of what's possible that would be difficult to do in many other languages without essentially just giving up and dumping the C style code in a string and calling some sort of eval on it and that is very much not the same thing.

[1] https://github.com/y2q-actionman/with-c-syntax/