Lisp

Better is better: improving productivity through programming languages "This is one reason why Lisp and functional programming folks are a bit cool on stuff like Object and Aspect orientation. They can extend to Aspects or Objects using the language constructs directly. To most of us working in popular languages these are paradigm shifting ways of thinking about programming. But we can't use Java directly to support something like aspects or generics. There's whole communities working on language and compiler extensions, open source libraries, as well as that all important vendor support - J2EE app servers are being renegineered just to support aspects. To a Lisp person these are just constructs expressed as macros (which are written in Lisp itself), something you do on a rainy weekend. What's the fuss about?"

"It's something a running joke in the Lisp community that all language efforts are doomed to reinvent Lisp."

"It's corny to say the worst thing about Lisp is a Lisp programmer. But there's some truth in it. Work long enough in this industry and you'll run into a Lisp bigot...I think Lisp never traditionally emphasized libraries because the language is so flexible you can build one on your own, but then you have the twin nightmares of integration and reuse lying in wait for you."

I have been thinking about Lisp and aspect programming recently. The other is ontological programming or programming against an ontology.