Very strange that he describes the MIT approach as "good" and the New Jersey approach as "not good enough" -- I have always understood them as "good" and "good

Very strange that he describes the MIT approach as "good" and the New Jersey approach as "not good enough" -- I have always understood them as "good" and "good enough". As in: why didn't we succeed? Because good enough was good enough. Based on this misconception he draws the conclusion that the Lisp folks think the C/Unix approach is "evil", which is just silly. Maybe this is why he thinks it's a cult.