" It's easier to write Haskell programs in Lisp than the converse."
You can write a compiler for one in the other (as you could do with any two Turing Complete programming languages), but other than that this seems to be a meaningless play on words.
But, ok let us take your claim that it is "easier to write Haskell programs in lisp than lisp programs in Haskell".
Care to point at some specific significant "haskell programs in lisp" that are "easier to write" than the corresponding "lisp programs in haskell" that are harder to write?
Er, "write X in Y" is a common (and meaningful) snowclone/expression. It means you're not adopting the idioms of the language you're writing in, you're attempting to kludge together the idioms of one language and the syntax of another. For example, writing Java in Scheme could be refusing to use recursion, map, fold, etc., but instead using loops/loop-analogues and vectors everywhere, trying to craft everything into objects or similar instead of using closures where appropriate, and so on. Basically, writing a messy Scheme version of a clean Java program.
Not knowing either Common Lisp or Haskell, I really couldn't comment on the rest, or on specifics in this case. Nor if it even makes sense, or is true in this case (that it's easier one way or the other).
Comments
"Haskell or Erlang or Factor are mind expanding in ways Common Lisp never was."
I see Lisp is more mind-reflecting beyond just being mind-expanding. It's easier to write Haskell programs in Lisp than the converse.
" It's easier to write Haskell programs in Lisp than the converse."
You can write a compiler for one in the other (as you could do with any two Turing Complete programming languages), but other than that this seems to be a meaningless play on words.
But, ok let us take your claim that it is "easier to write Haskell programs in lisp than lisp programs in Haskell".
Care to point at some specific significant "haskell programs in lisp" that are "easier to write" than the corresponding "lisp programs in haskell" that are harder to write?
Er, "write X in Y" is a common (and meaningful) snowclone/expression. It means you're not adopting the idioms of the language you're writing in, you're attempting to kludge together the idioms of one language and the syntax of another. For example, writing Java in Scheme could be refusing to use recursion, map, fold, etc., but instead using loops/loop-analogues and vectors everywhere, trying to craft everything into objects or similar instead of using closures where appropriate, and so on. Basically, writing a messy Scheme version of a clean Java program.
Not knowing either Common Lisp or Haskell, I really couldn't comment on the rest, or on specifics in this case. Nor if it even makes sense, or is true in this case (that it's easier one way or the other).