Hacker News Reader

yeah ... that was my point ... it's a tradition to write Lisp in Lisp / Scheme in Scheme but it's also a testimony to the simplicity of Lisp 1.0. The actual first functioning Lisp interpreter was written in IBM 704 assembler, but once that was done, everything else from that day forward could have been done in Lisp. A fair amount of it was, once macros and Lisp compilers showed up.

View on HN

Lisp is not particularly unique in that regard. Forth is even simpler (perhaps too simple), and it's not that hard to write a naive implementation of Joy or Tcl.

Besides, piggybacking off the existing Lisp implementation doesn't help much when you're trying to figure out how the infrastructure (GC, etc.) is implemented. I learned a LOT implementing a Scheme interpreter in OCaml a couple years ago, and wouldn't discourage anyone from doing so in whatever language they feel most comfortable with. (I'm actually taking a break from writing a small compiler right now, for a proprietary database query language we need to convert.)

I think you are/were mostly being voted down because of your tone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com