3 ms·

There are many good points in this article and even the variety of Common Lisp implementations in existence attest to the author's point. It seems that everyone

There are many good points in this article and even the variety of Common Lisp implementations in existence attest to the author's point. It seems that everyone is rolling out their whole new CL implementation. That said, even if it were true that the power of lisp turned out to be it's curse, one should be careful to generalize this way about lisp hackers, 80% projects and lack of documentation. The language might tempt you to become the hacker portrayed in this article, but it certainly doesn't fight you should you want to follow best practices.

pareidolia 11y ago
Having multiple implementations wasn't a problem for Java (Sun JDK, IcedTea, JRockit), noone thinks much of the different compilers available for the C family (GCC, CLANG, Microsoft C compiler, Intel's C compiler), consider Ruby with MRI, JRuby, or Python. I could go on. Members of the Lisp family seem to be judged by a different standard. I don't know why that is. My perspective: the implementations attest to good documentation and collaboration. SBCL by itself is an admirable artifact with extensive documentation that's been maintaned since 1999 (when it forked from CMUCL). So what gives?