Is Lisp Still Unique? Or at Least Different? (2002)
I&#x27;ve always been intellectually fascinated by Lisp, but would NOT want to use it in a production (team) environment. It has two problems:<p>First, is that it&#x27;s <i>too</i> &quot;meta&quot; in that one can shape it to be just about anything they want. This can make it difficult for others to read your code, for they have to know your mind&#x27;s style. Our typical &quot;office&quot; languages tend to hard-wire idioms, such as control structures (if, while, case, try, etc.) which make it easier for other readers to digest. It may be less parsimonious (more code), but it&#x27;s overall easier for an outsider to come in and read it.<p>Second is that nested lists are the wrong base structure for humans. Our natural languages are closer to maps or ordered maps (AKA &quot;associative arrays&quot;), not nested lists. I was working with others at the C2.com wiki to form something similar for maps: a meta-heavy map-oriented language. We nicknamed the project &quot;MASP&quot;. C2 fell apart, but I have some new ideas for MASP that I may write up one of these days.<p>MASP may never go mainstream because of its heavy meta-ing, but could be great for experimental, hobby, and rush-to-market startup projects. Paul Graham has said Lisp&#x27;s meta ability gave him an edge in the &quot;stores race&quot;. Being first-to-market matters in dot-com-ville more than team-friendly code.