> Training seems like some lost art as we collectively move toward a more disposable programming ethos. I think you're right on that, and that is damaging for

> Training seems like some lost art as we collectively move toward a more disposable programming ethos. I think you're right on that, and that is damaging for Lisp. These days most training seems to be done by external sources, for example Pluralsight, Udemy, medium articles about how to do a specific things, etc. Since those have commercial incentives, they target the biggest audiance, which is usually JavaScript, Java, Python, or something like that. On the other hand, the companies don't want to train people in a specific language, so they hire people that already know their language. That creates a positive feedback cycle that makes less used languages even less used. Same thing about open source contributions (tooling, libraries, etc). I think the insistance on Emacs may also be damaging because it's an even bigger barrier of entry.