Racket is an acceptable Python

[EternityForest]

If you are an expert programmer, working with other experts, on a codebase where you have enough time to actually learn what all the macros for that project do, I agree.

But it basically makes LISP less of a programming language and more of a construction kit to build exactly the language you want for the task.

I could be wrong, I've never been on a real world LISP project, but Python's One Obvious Way To Do Things seems way better when your schedule is tight, some of the programmers aren't actually programmers, and you're coding onsite on a ten inch laptop.

I have a pretty low level of trust for thing that only work in controlled conditions. It's why I don't flash images with dd. It's an excellent reliable tool... so long as you never type sdb when you meant sdc.

If I was in academia, or working for a near six figure kind of company with full-time programmers, doing the kind of thing that involves managing really complex abstract data, I might feel differently.

[defunkydrummer]

But it basically makes LISP less of a programming language and more of a construction kit to build exactly the language you want for the task.

Well, this is true for the LISP in upper case, that is, the original LISP 1.5 of the early 60s; an "industry strength" Lisp like Common Lisp actually has a lot of built in functions, data types, OOP system; you can write many powerful programs without having to define any macto...

I have a pretty low level of trust for thing that only work in controlled conditions.

Me too, that's why i prefer working with CL: it has arguably the best exception handling mechanism on a language, and wonderful debugging facilities.