> If you imagine the only or main use for a powerful type system is error-checking, it only demonstrates how much you have still to learn. It is not language de

> If you imagine the only or main use for a powerful type system is error-checking, it only demonstrates how much you have still to learn. It is not language design that is on a cycle, but people circling back to what excited them in their youth. But that was not the Lisp, it was youth itself, which you will not find in Lisp. Ironically, this comment reminds me of nothing more than the Smug Lisp Weenies of yore. https://wiki.c2.com/?SmugLispWeenie https://wiki.c2.com/?SmugLispWeenie I realize that we're all about technical purity over marketing, but I don't think you'll convince people to join your cause by 1) insulting their knowledge and 2) dismissing their interest in an alternative point of view as a way to 'reclaim their youth'. You may be right on both counts - I don't know - but even for someone interested in the technology alone, it's hardly a convincing argument to want to look into more strongly typed languages. (or whatever other technical feature you might want to advocate) Lisp received decades worth of attention and investment from folks at the frontier of the field, and it's stayed relegated to the margin for almost the entirety of that time. For people that took the time to learn Lisp, it could be a compelling and powerful environment. But the problem has been that to understand the advantages, you have to spend real time and effort to get there. You have to do the reading, do the work, write and evolve software, and accept a different way of working. The strongly typed functional programming community of today has some of the same sorts of issues and Lisp did back in the day. It's a compelling technology with lots of benefits, but it takes real work to understand and take advantage of. For people that have done the work and already get it, it's an obviously compelling thing - the way things 'should be'. For people that don't, it's an academic ivory tower or worse. Whatever you believe about your favored technology, it's the way this gap is addressed that will make the difference in whether or not it's successful or not. Lisp never did get it right. (Although Clojure arguably got pretty close.) I don't mean to specifically offend your sensibilities with respect to your comment, but I can't help but think you're just repeating the same mistake the Lisp folks did. (And no, there isn't a technical distinction between Lisp and whatever that will fix what is fundamentally a marketing and persuasion issue.)