I sure hope the giant, hideous, obtrusive diamonds inserted into the text to denote a hyperlink doesn't catch on as a trend. It's a great way to break the flow of the text and irritate your readers. As for the idea of Lisps, well, it sure seems neat. But I've literally never run across a situation where I needed my code to edit itself. I've never run across a situation where the lack of an everything-is-an-expression…
If you've never had the possibility to do so before it's not surprising that you never felt the need to do it. Languages affect your way of thinking and implementing algorithms. On the other hand, once you've tried the sweet honey of lisp macros, going back to C macros makes you sad. There's not a week that goes by without me being frustrated at the rudeness of C macros. Not to mention languages that don't offer a ma…
I noticed the article mentions that some don't like calling syntax extensions macros because of the comparison to Common Lisp macros. To that, I say that's a crazy way of thinking. Macros are necessarily dependent upon the semantics of the language they are for, so anybody who thinks that all macro systems are identical are the people who probably wouldn't go out of their way to learn a language with a non-textual substitution macro system, so changing the name for that purpose seems foolish. On the other hand, syntax-extension or syntax-transformations are a more descriptive term on their own merits.
And yeah, the diamonds are silly. Better to just color the word.