So python's got a with statement. What of it didn't? Well then, you're screwed. Hope you like calling file.close().
If lisp didn't have a with statement, you could add one yourself. And if scheme didn't have a with statement... well, you could always add one, but before dynamic-wind got added, it could break if you weren't careful. Some things you can't just patch in. Anyways, now you'll say, "but python does have a with statement!" But that was just an example: there are things python will never have that you can add to lisp yourself. Like multimethod dispatch and generics, anaphoric operators, lazy module loading, pattern matching, ADTs, regex literals (with readtables), non-deterministic operators (the classic amb/assert operators, for concisely expressing searching a list (although they're admittedly more toys than anything else)), and a full-on looping construct that allows for awk-style record processing of arbitrarily typed records from arbitrary sources (field splitting is handled by other functions). And that's just a few examples I came across. There are dozens of others.
That would never all be added to the language: there's way too much, and it's too specialized.
As for your theory that macros make code harder to understand, you don't have any proof. In fact, you have negative proof, as there's plenty of logic, good programming practice, and individual cases indicating that careful use of macros can make code easier to understand.
> But that was just an example: there are things python will never have that you can add to lisp yourself.
I don't want to. I want a language that has sensible norms.
> As for your theory that macros make code harder to understand, you don't have any proof. In fact, you have negative proof,
Do I?
> as there's plenty of logic,
What logic? Show me. I simply don't believe you, as it's not provable.
> good programming practice
Still not proof. I believe the opposite, that it's not good programming practice to use macros.
> and individual cases indicating that careful use of macros can make code easier to understand.
So anecdotal evidence, not proof.
You have no more proof than I have. My personal experience is that in most mainstream languages, the most common arguments are over invention of frameworks/libs vs using existing ones, and those devs certainly would not be happy having macros thrown in the mix.
Lisp has sensible norms: Unlike you, however, we acknowledge that what may be a sensible norm for one situation isn't for another.
As for it not being good programming practice to use macros, it isn't good practice to use them excessively. However, they can be used to make your code much clearer. Here's the reasoning (no, it's not proof, you're right on that front, but it's better than what you've got, which is just your opinion, AFAICT):
The larger a codebase grows, the more likely it becomes to contain bugs. The most common way to decrease the size of the codebase is to abstract away common idioms, only express them in one place, and reference that from other parts of your program. This is what functions and objects do. However, some idioms are incapable of being expressed as functions or objects. These idioms must be repeated over and over again, and often result in insidious bugs when somebody gets them subtly wrong. Macros allow you to capture those idioms and express them once, eliminating bugs. They also make the code easier to understand, by abstracting away complex logic.
So, if you really think macros are bad, than what's wrong with that line of thinking?
Again, in your opinion. And sorry to start blunt because I'm trying to round this out as we're getting nowhere :)
To me, writing my code like it's an AST, amid a ton of parens is not sensible. I've happily not done so in many other languages for over a decade, and I'm very happy with that state of affairs (or at least I'm relatively happy with the modern incarnations of C-style langs, e.g. Rust, Crystal, ES6, and I would be very unhappy if I had to chuck that in tomorrow and write lisp).
Generally agree with your train of thought on abstractions, and see how you arrive at macros. But my take is that it's simply not a good idea to go as far as macros, especially when the syntax sacrifice is so great. If the language is truly missing something, take it up with the language authors.
(I've never encountered a situation in > 6 years of writing Python where I encountered something I could not do and needed macros for).
Again, my basic opinion is I see it as a trade-off, and one that I don't agree with. I think many others feel the same way if they get as far as understanding the purported benefits of homoiconicity. But most aren't willing to argue it on Hacker News and get downvoted to high hell (which is why I used a throwaway).
(I should note meanwhile in another thread someone wrote off the entire JS community as 'full of self-righteous assholes' [0] and got upvoted to top post).
Thanks for the discussion, it was an interesting experiment in arguing these thoughts I've had for a long time, as an 'abandoned' Clojure-curious dev. I'm a bit sad I didn't get any new answers, but appreciate the insight all the same.
If lisp didn't have a with statement, you could add one yourself. And if scheme didn't have a with statement... well, you could always add one, but before dynamic-wind got added, it could break if you weren't careful. Some things you can't just patch in. Anyways, now you'll say, "but python does have a with statement!" But that was just an example: there are things python will never have that you can add to lisp yourself. Like multimethod dispatch and generics, anaphoric operators, lazy module loading, pattern matching, ADTs, regex literals (with readtables), non-deterministic operators (the classic amb/assert operators, for concisely expressing searching a list (although they're admittedly more toys than anything else)), and a full-on looping construct that allows for awk-style record processing of arbitrarily typed records from arbitrary sources (field splitting is handled by other functions). And that's just a few examples I came across. There are dozens of others.
That would never all be added to the language: there's way too much, and it's too specialized.
As for your theory that macros make code harder to understand, you don't have any proof. In fact, you have negative proof, as there's plenty of logic, good programming practice, and individual cases indicating that careful use of macros can make code easier to understand.