Honestly, I can't do anything but put blame for this on people like Paul Graham. Some people come to Lisp and expect to discover a magic wand to abolish all bl

Honestly, I can't do anything but put blame for this on people like Paul Graham. Some people come to Lisp and expect to discover a magic wand to abolish all blub languages that was prophecised by the legendary almighty Lisp Prophet, and they rush out to seek it. Then they realize that Lisp is just another programming language equivalent to all others by means of Turing completeness, with particular features, strengths and weaknesses they feel cheated and disenchanted, and go wing our their frustrations by means of articles like that. Which is directly why articles like Baggers' happen. The question is: why do people actually consider Lisp to be the Holy Grail By Which All ALGOL-Like Languages Must/Shall/Will Die? And the answer that instantly comes to my mind is all the unfair PR people like Graham give it. Calling Lisp a magical all-fixing wand is all fun and games until someone actually believes in it (who wouldn't believe The Y-Combinator Guy? after all), and then discovers that the reality doesn't really look that straightforward, and writing Lisp doesn't suddenly mean that you get to do less work than you'd otherwise do. As pointed out in Shinmera's response, https://reader.tymoon.eu/article/370 https://reader.tymoon.eu/article/370 : I believe Lisp allows me to be quicker about developing these tools than other languages, but making an actual game would be even quicker if I didn't have to make most of these tools in the first place.