> C is something that works better for the average user. difficulty of using vs. difficulty of using correctly. (And I'm not even sure worse is better makes s

> C is something that works better for the average user. difficulty of using vs. difficulty of using correctly. (And I'm not even sure worse is better makes sense in a modern context). Difficulty of using a programming language (regardless of results) is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent writing code in that language. If the majority of users writes C or C++ code all day, C and C++ become 'better for the average user.' If the majority of your users write Common Lisp or Scheme all day, CL and Scheme become 'better for the average user'. C and C++ are much more difficult to actually use correctly (without regard for who the average user is), mainly because there are many more ways to screw up when you are working at such a low level. The myth of Lisp being difficult makes me boggle. There isn't even a syntax to memorize! Speed, safety, flexibility, dynamic debugging and compilation, optional static typing... You don't even need the higher level aspects of the language to reap benefits from these features. With Quick-lisp if I need a library I just load it and use it (plug and play). Why not replace my C++ and scripting languages with Common Lisp if I can get the best of both worlds? The economics of this is that if I already know Common Lisp, and am willing to teach those around me, I am a fool to use anything else.