i start to feel limited by the fact that python isn't lisp enough
i should maybe really make this lisp+python thing someday
@CobaltVelvet Do you know about hy?
https://github.com/hylang/hy
@pybyte that is exactly it
@CobaltVelvet @pybyte i'm staring at this, and it *feels* powerful, but I just started learning Python a month or two ago, and haven't really Lisp'd yet...but...I'd love for someone with Moar Knowledge Beans to esplain me a thang about this...like, why is "not Lisp enough" a Squad Goal, and how do I understand it, conceptually on a semi-high-but-intending-to-use-it-soon sort of way
@eryn @CobaltVelvet Pick one of the major Lisps (Racket, Clojure, Common Lisp) and play around with it for a while. Programming in Lisp often requires thinking about problems in very different ways then you would with an OOP language. IMO it's really fun.
@pybyte @CobaltVelvet @eryn Of those I would say Clojure is probably the most mind-expanding and least frustrating due to the fact that it's the most functional (in an FP sense) while having a very simple and powerful macro system and powerful primitives for concurrent programming. Racket is awesome, but it's HUGE, and its macro system is pretty hard to wrap one's brain around.
@eryn @CobaltVelvet That wasn't very specific, but digging into a Lisp would really be the best way to get it.
@eryn @pybyte i was writing this class and it just bothered me that, while the class body is nearly python code that will be run on class declaration, it has those arbitrary constraints that makes it different. it just doesn't feel right when we could use instead the exact same "thing" for a class/function/lambda/control structures, and get freed to structure code in any depth like we would any data structure and think of it as such multidimmentional thing instead of forcing it flat