I was going to say that this probably isn't fair because they do get quite a few languages and nobody is going to have the bandwidth to get all languages... but then *they* say "...for all programming languages...". I mean, there are a LOT of programming languages out there. Was it really going to hurt them to say something like "almost all" or "many" or even "all commonly used".

Ultimately, this is a nitpick on the website. However, the whole point of static analysis is that you're nitpicking because not nitpicking can sometimes have disproportionate consequences. So I agree that it would be nice if they cleaned up that particular section to be a bit more accurate.

They could list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACL2 but nobody cares I guess

I see the whole thing as a huge advertisement for Forth, Lisp, and Prolog.

> i guess that means you can't write security bugs in lisp, right?

I know this is sarcasm, but there's a reason Greenspun's tenth rule holds true.

Clojure is a Lisp.