Lisp is certainly the most powerful/elegant meta-programming language out there.
But there is a nuance here:
> code is a message that can be read different ways
Think about it. When you read code directly, then you are now dependent on code. And code can change for many reasons, including language changes and mere syntax changes.
For that reason, I like the approach of describing the required actions in a certain data format and then reading this data format in a different ways, in opposition to read code directly. Both in the same language of course. This also reliefs you from having to represent generic expressions, operators etc. you only need the subset that is relevant for you, which is most likely much more coarse grained.
This is imho the cleaner approach but it comes with the overhead of having to design a "sublanguage" in your language and than interpreting it in your language.
But there is a nuance here: > code is a message that can be read different ways
Think about it. When you read code directly, then you are now dependent on code. And code can change for many reasons, including language changes and mere syntax changes.
For that reason, I like the approach of describing the required actions in a certain data format and then reading this data format in a different ways, in opposition to read code directly. Both in the same language of course. This also reliefs you from having to represent generic expressions, operators etc. you only need the subset that is relevant for you, which is most likely much more coarse grained.
This is imho the cleaner approach but it comes with the overhead of having to design a "sublanguage" in your language and than interpreting it in your language.