Here's a rather funny take on it... http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/lisp-is-not-acceptable-lisp.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/lisp-is-no

Here's a rather funny take on it... http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/lisp-is-not-acceptable-lisp.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/lisp-is-not-acceptab... What amazes me is that nobody's pointed out the obvious counter-observation: Lisp is not an acceptable LISP. Not for any value of Lisp. There's nothing magical about this, nothing partisan. If Lisp were acceptable, then we'd all be using it. You've all read about the Road to Lisp. I was on it for a little over a year. It's a great road, very enlightening, blah blah blah, but what they fail to mention is that Lisp isn't the at the end of it. He points out a few things: 1. Too many different implementations 2. No decent, updated spec 3. CLOS (he gets pretty detailed here, and there are some counter-arguments and clarifications in the comments) 4. Macros, and how they don't quite deliver on the promise because most modern tools aren't equipped to handle them. 5. Type system (He doesn't really get into this one) I'm a Lisp newb, so while I understand most of the arguments conceptually I'm in no position to really evaluate their validity. But it's an interesting discussion.