In principle. Most people find somebody else's metaprogramming-heavy Common Lisp difficult to work with. When you look at classic programs from the golden age of AI you find they either rewrote their Lisp prototype in C++ for speed or the Lisp program (like an expert system shell) is much smaller than you imagine possible but it looks like the engine of a UFO.
Though I've only seen other people's Lisp projects online and in books, I haven't seen metaprogramming that made it less readable - usually, it makes the program more readable. At most, it defines a DSL, e.g. COMFY 6502, which is a thin wrapper over 6502 assembly implemented as a DSL in Emacs Lisp. But most of the time, macros provide a readable interface over a bunch of hard-to-understand boilerplate generated code.
> Most people find somebody else's metaprogramming-heavy Common Lisp difficult to work with.
Citation needed. Org names, projects, numbers.
Also, how easy do people find someone's Java metaprogramming? Where the whole metaprogramming system is locally invented, not just its application to the problem?
That code looks readable to me. It is well formatted and the functions are small, with simple control paths. No variable assignments or loops to unravel.
It defines no macros, but refers to some defined elsewhere; the instructions say you are supposed to use a certain other source file related to Chapter 14 of a book.
I could probably ramp up on this in a day, if I had reason to.
