I find only the first reason convincing, and this would obviously be the case for any programmer, just as you choose to implement in a language best for the task at hand that you know well, you should choose to vibe code in the same way.

Of the other reasons - when he says >Most modern languages force you to describe exactly how a machine should shuffle bits around.

he must mean something very differently from what I mean if I were to say shuffle bits around, because this is normally what I think most modern languages don't force you to do.

the elite thing seems not to mean much.

>Homoiconicity and the AST

maybe, I would expect predicting well known syntax would be easier for an LLM, but he says it's not. So... maybe?

>Macros as Context Compression

Wait, is the LLM generating macros? But LLMs have well known propensity to verbosity. That is to say in these other languages experts in those languages find the code the LLM generates overly verbose. But not in Lisp, or is it that he writes a macro and tells the LLM use that, but I mean other language experts can write a function and say use that instead of your more verbose methods?

>Superior Error Handling

shouldn't we have the LLM generate Erlang?

I mean I get the reasons to go off on how your language is superior and great and do the arguing about all sorts of features and I am all for Lisp or Scheme as maybe the greatest, but the language snobbery in support of LLM target choice just seems weird. Like arguing about why the cream filling in Twinkies is superior to that of Choko-Diles.

Maybe I am just not keeping up on the latest frontiers of language snobbery anymore.