3 ms·
This is a really loose definition of “failed”. His definition of failed seems to be “didn’t take over the world”... but most things don’t. It’d be like saying “
by overgard 7y ago
This is a really loose definition of “failed”. His definition of failed seems to be “didn’t take over the world”... but most things don’t. It’d be like saying “John Smith failed at life because he wasn’t a billionaire by age 25”. As a language it was (and is) used in a lot of places, had a lot of offspring, and brought a lot of influential ideas into the world. That doesn’t seem like a failure!
- ajkjk 7y agoConsidering the number of people who have bemoaned over the years how Lisp never became mainstream, I think it's fair to say that it failed compared to what its enthusiasts wanted.
- xhgdvjky 7y agoI think enthusiasts are separated from the mainstream by definition
- techslave 7y ago> His definition of failed seems to be “didn’t take over the world” You don’t need to guess. paragraph 2: > Some of the above languages are no longer quite as popular as they once were. This will be the definition of "failure" we will use here. I think it’s fine to use “failure” as a concise term that way, especially when he explicitly defines it. I don’t agree with his reasoning but the use of “failure” is fine as a rhetorical point.