is LISP the ultimate prgram language?

[Jerry Coffin]

[ ... ]

I'm not sure that macros were added because C was trying to be
like assembler---C's macros are a lot weaker than anything I've
seen in assembler---, but what is sure is that all assemblers
back then did have some support for macros, and that the people
developing C were very familiar with assembler, and macro
technology, so when the need for e.g. "inline functions" was
felt, macros would be a more or less natural response.

Right -- I didn't mean to imply that it was necessarily an attempt at
being like an assembler, just that they seem to be looking for a
relatively obscure source, when a much more obvious one is available.

What I don't get is Lisp proponents trying to imply that C
macros are derived from Lisp. Even if it were true, it's
something that I'd try to hide, rather than claim credit for;
C's preprocessor are not exactly the best feature of the
language.

How can you ask such foolish question? They're on a chivalrous quest!
Lisp will now be called "Dulcinea", and they will protect all from
the cruel windmills!

 

[White Wolf]

Taking an Into C++ class in college and the teacher was
talking something abt how LISP was considered by some
to be the ultimate language and that C++ the wrong
"direction" to be going as far as languages.

Can anyone confirm and explain or elaborate?

There is no ultimate programming language. Ask you teacher to write an
operating system kernel using his favorite LISP. If there is an
ultimate programming language, that is machine code. Except for the
little problem, that there isn't one kind of machine code, but thousands...

The teacher has told you his opinion. He should be the one elaborating
why he thinks that, and why is he trying to disseminate his
opinion/experience as a dogma, and why on a C++ course to demotivate the
students...