What is meant by a culture of integration is not that everything is universally expressed, as in Lisp. What is meant is that complex pieces of software expose consistent, (supposedly) well documented interfaces. The physical manifestation of the interface can be *anything*, so long as it is documented and adhered to by the component you're using. Ideally, the interface is so well documented that you don't even need a compiler for the language used to write the component in the first place. You can use Lisp to write code, but maybe you link against a library I wrote in Forth, or perhaps APL, or dare I say it, COBOL.
This simple observation gives rise to the ENTIRE software industry as it's espoused today. Because everything is abstracted behind Application Binary Interfaces (ABIs; usually enforced by the OS) and Application Programmer Interfaces (APIs; enforced by the component authors and compilers), you're free to "ship" a software product without including its source code, which means you can charge MONEY for doing it. There is an incentive to sell software, rather than sell support for it.
With Lisp, Forth, Smalltalk, et. al., all you have is source -- the concept of "object code" simply does not exist. Hence, without intermediate binary representations of software components, there can be no means of distributing your work without also distributing its source code. The profit motive for software development disappears, and thus so too does the public support for those languages. Expressivity and productivity be damned. Only those who embrace the idea of offering software-related services work with these languages; those who offer software-as-a-product won't be caught dead using them, for it compromises their entire business model.
Integrated?
What is meant by a culture of integration is not that everything is universally expressed, as in Lisp. What is meant is that complex pieces of software expose consistent, (supposedly) well documented interfaces. The physical manifestation of the interface can be *anything*, so long as it is documented and adhered to by the component you're using. Ideally, the interface is so well documented that you don't even need a compiler for the language used to write the component in the first place. You can use Lisp to write code, but maybe you link against a library I wrote in Forth, or perhaps APL, or dare I say it, COBOL.
This simple observation gives rise to the ENTIRE software industry as it's espoused today. Because everything is abstracted behind Application Binary Interfaces (ABIs; usually enforced by the OS) and Application Programmer Interfaces (APIs; enforced by the component authors and compilers), you're free to "ship" a software product without including its source code, which means you can charge MONEY for doing it. There is an incentive to sell software, rather than sell support for it.
With Lisp, Forth, Smalltalk, et. al., all you have is source -- the concept of "object code" simply does not exist. Hence, without intermediate binary representations of software components, there can be no means of distributing your work without also distributing its source code. The profit motive for software development disappears, and thus so too does the public support for those languages. Expressivity and productivity be damned. Only those who embrace the idea of offering software-related services work with these languages; those who offer software-as-a-product won't be caught dead using them, for it compromises their entire business model.