3 ms·
It is a very short list. I wonder why Lisp has completely failed to be successful given the usual fan claims that it is more powerful, more productive, more eve
by mbrodersen 5y ago
It is a very short list. I wonder why Lisp has completely failed to be successful given the usual fan claims that it is more powerful, more productive, more everything than any other languages? The usual claim by Lisp fans that only a few blessed people are smart enough to understand and use Lisp is beyond ridiculous. I learned Common Lisp, Scheme and Clojure just for fun, and implemented my own Lisp variations (including macros) in both C++ and Haskell. Lisp languages are easy to learn and use. However I would never use a Lisp for production work. I absolutely could. However I simply prefer languages like C++, Typescript and Haskell. So my guess is that people are different, people’s brains work differently, and for whatever reasons Lisp appeals to certain personality types and not others. And it just happens to be that the personally/brain types that prefer Lisp is a minority. It could have been the other way around of course but it just isn’t. I haven’t been able to come up with any other explanation that seems to be even remotely plausible.
- tmm84 5y agoMy personal thought on the why it isn't popular is the fact Common Lisp has multiple implementations. Which one do I pick? What are the differences? What's the compatibility like should I decide to switch to another implementation? Experienced common lisp users will know the answer but try and get a manager or leader with no experience to spend time trying to understand/read about all these things when simpler/easier choices that work the traditional way exist. This can apply to scheme to some extent as well.