2 added 12 characters in body
source | link

That may be true, as others stated, many programs require configurability and so do contain various lisp-like interpreters. 

However the statement also implies with a smirk that all you need to make a program is Lisp, and that all other languages are inferior to it. 

But it's wrong, Lisp may be expressive, but it's also too abstract, it tries to hide details of a platform and pretend nothing but lists exist in computer world. 

The reality of high performance programming, is that sometimes we do need to mingle with bits and bytes, and do OS specific stuff, so it's not possible to do everything with just Lisp as statement implies. 

It is rather the other way around, no matter how complicated, clever or sophisticated of a language you invent, all it ends up being is just another way to write assembly.

That may be true, as others stated, many programs require configurability and so do contain various lisp-like interpreters. However the statement also implies with a smirk that all you need to make a program is Lisp, and that all other languages are inferior to it. But it's wrong, Lisp may be expressive, but it's also too abstract, it tries to hide details of a platform and pretend nothing but lists exist in computer world. The reality of high performance programming, is that sometimes we do need to mingle with bits and bytes, and do OS specific stuff, so it's not possible to do everything with just Lisp as statement implies. It is rather the other way around, no matter how complicated, clever or sophisticated of a language you invent, all it ends up being is just another way to write assembly.

That may be true, as others stated, many programs require configurability and so do contain various lisp-like interpreters. 

However the statement also implies with a smirk that all you need to make a program is Lisp, and that all other languages are inferior to it. 

But it's wrong, Lisp may be expressive, but it's also too abstract, it tries to hide details of a platform and pretend nothing but lists exist in computer world. 

The reality of high performance programming, is that sometimes we do need to mingle with bits and bytes, and do OS specific stuff, so it's not possible to do everything with just Lisp as statement implies. 

It is rather the other way around, no matter how complicated, clever or sophisticated of a language you invent, all it ends up being is just another way to write assembly.

1
source | link

That may be true, as others stated, many programs require configurability and so do contain various lisp-like interpreters. However the statement also implies with a smirk that all you need to make a program is Lisp, and that all other languages are inferior to it. But it's wrong, Lisp may be expressive, but it's also too abstract, it tries to hide details of a platform and pretend nothing but lists exist in computer world. The reality of high performance programming, is that sometimes we do need to mingle with bits and bytes, and do OS specific stuff, so it's not possible to do everything with just Lisp as statement implies. It is rather the other way around, no matter how complicated, clever or sophisticated of a language you invent, all it ends up being is just another way to write assembly.