3 ms·
Your comments are describing two different things. - Technical leaders choosing a language that's easy for developers to Grok to make them more fungible, and m
by Capricorn2481 3y ago
Your comments are describing two different things.
- Technical leaders choosing a language that's easy for developers to Grok to make them more fungible, and make onboarding easier.
- Corporate managers purposefully choosing a language as a "Response" to Common Lisp, as you said, to tank the performance of a company for more funding.
One is actually happening, the other requires me to believe corporations even know what Common Lisp is, which would be amazing. You're lucky if management even knows what Python is.
The conspiracy theory I'm referencing is the fact that people think Corporations just hate developer proficiency and will actively fight against tools that make people more proficient. That is different from someone coming to a manager with, from the managers perspective, an idea that could increase efficiency but make them look bad. The first is not something a manager actively does, but the second is an insecure reaction to someone "Rocking the boat."
Common Lisp did not take the world over for lots of reasons beyond hand wringing PMs.
- bitwize 3y agoYou're missing the point. It's not really a response to Lisp as such, it's a response to anything which makes developers more productive. Developments from the Lisp world have had trickle-down effects that make other languages and IDEs more powerful: garbage collection, hot-reloading, etc. The productivity gains realized by these developments, however, have been more than neutralized by a concomitant increase in corporate BS. So it's not really a conspiracy of orgs out to get Lisp but it does make Lisp a bad fit for organizations which rely on inertia, ego, and fungible worker-units, which is most of them.