There is no other words to qualify this article: This article is shit, and it amazes me that a website called "the code project" could greenlight it. There is

There is no other words to qualify this article: This article is shit, and it amazes me that a website called "the code project" could greenlight it. There is so much wrong with the article, but it can be summarized on: People who don't know lisp shouldn't attempt to criticize it. Exhibit A of ignorance: "Of course Lisp has alternative ways to store tuples. It has structs; it has objects; it has multiple types of structs and objects. However, most Lisp programmers and programs don't use them very much, and later we'll talk about why." Which is patently untrue; in fact there is a legion of lispers that were attracted to it due​ to its object system. Exhibit B: Author makes a really poor attempt to work with vectors, by just defining a simple struct, and then complains about the verbose syntax. If he was a person who really used lisp for writing an actual working, useful program, he would already know that if he needs brief syntax for his own custom vector, has many options: 1. use array notation: #(1 2 3) 2. write a macro 3. write a macro to define his own custom vector delimiters. 4. create an object, add necesary methods. 5. a combination of anything above. There is so much wrong with the article, the author seems to even doesn't know about association lists and plists; etc.