> I'm biased because this one is effectively "What if we make an APL Lisp?"
You might like this excerpt from the MIT Dynamic Languages Wizard's panel, where Guy Steele said [1]:
> Higher order functionals, I think, are underrated, and can be very good. As the years pass, the more I use Common Lisp, the more I find myself using the sequence functions, including a lot of mapcars. I had to do a matrix tensor product routine about two weeks ago, and I was puzzling over how to do the nested do loops and so forth, and finally I realized it was just mapcar of mapcar of apply of append to mapcar and mapcar, done. No big deal. In other words, thinking in APL should improve your Lisp code.
Steele has many comments I love in regards to APL! Unlike many, he still sees it as a great path. He's a fantastic example of someone who's competent enough that they have no reason to slander other languages.
You might like this excerpt from the MIT Dynamic Languages Wizard's panel, where Guy Steele said [1]:
> Higher order functionals, I think, are underrated, and can be very good. As the years pass, the more I use Common Lisp, the more I find myself using the sequence functions, including a lot of mapcars. I had to do a matrix tensor product routine about two weeks ago, and I was puzzling over how to do the nested do loops and so forth, and finally I realized it was just mapcar of mapcar of apply of append to mapcar and mapcar, done. No big deal. In other words, thinking in APL should improve your Lisp code.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agw-wlHGi0E&feature=youtu.be...