The one about Lisp interactivity
The thing I still don&#x27;t understand about REPL driven development is how you manage state, and how you manage threads. If I have a task running and it depends on a collection of global variables, those global variables now need some machinery around them so that they can be edited from the REPL thread. If you replace a function, there now needs to be decisions made about when you now begin usage of the new function. To me, the understanding that some set of things may be replaced right under you adds a great deal of additional engineering complexity. I&#x27;ve gotten various answers about how one deals with this. One being &quot;yes add the machinery&quot; or &quot;just yolo it, yes it&#x27;s a race condition but it&#x27;s rarely an issue,&quot; neither of which I find particularly satisfying.<p>Concerning state, I&#x27;ve occasionally found myself developing a long-lived lisp image, and then I need to restart the VM for one reason or another, and then found that nothing works. The state of the in-memory image had gotten totally out of sync with the codebase. Perhaps this is a manner of discipline in lisp, but I greatly appreciate the replacement of discipline (be it memory management or the aforementioned situation) with machinery of the language itself.