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
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).