>>6
the >>3 have not started this thread.
I know who started, and we care. Your post/reply >>6, is so vague and abstract without comparison of code side by side, makes me wonder if you posted gpt reply, or ai actually writes & understands subject better than you.
oh, and again, I'm not >>3 and not the one who wrote >>3 `s reply/post.
If all you're writing is glue code to make one API talk to another API, and you don't need it to run on any particular CPU
I want to speak for 99,99% of generic general programmers out there. Most of them are just writing glue code, mostly for web apps, which could be split further to backend & frontend. that being run on x86-64 mostly. And ARM/M1 lately.
watta heck you talking about man, you speaking like your lisp code involves some specific assembly instructions, like r u trollin with 'sed s/C/lisp' ?
lisp/scheme/clojure is high level, GC'ed lang, it's not a low level perfomance oriented with manual memory management, like you painting it to be.
And compilers you say... LLVM, GCC is not coded in Lisp family dialects. Some other langs (& rust) made use of OcaML for compiler.
OP is just saying that aggressive functional push for Lisps, backed by corporate money & shills, is not completely justified to make Ruby/perl/php/python/js developers switch to Lisp family dialects. e.g. it's not a better option for them (aka most of today developers) to spent valuable time/money/calories/resources to switch.
And OP is pretty clear , said how is main selling features of Lisp : DSLs, metaprogramming, introspection reflection - implemented just fine in other said langs. So aggressive religious cult around Lisp dialects are not economically/rationally justified.