2 ms·

1) anecdotal self praise. That a startup (one!) that got acquired used Lisp doesn't prove anything. Many many more succesful startups did not. And its not like

by batista 14y ago

1) anecdotal self praise. That a startup (one!) that got acquired used Lisp doesn't prove anything. Many many more succesful startups did not. And its not like it was the most intriguing technologically or acquisition-value wise. 2) "A library for almost anything" (and lot of them abandoned or half done) != multiple libraries for everything and then some. 3) I wouldn't put forward elisp as an example of a good functional language. Actually it's crap. And Emacs is not more powerful that Eclipse or IntelliJ, except if you mean "has lots of hohum plugins and ome good ones".

greyfade 14y ago
> 1) anecdotal self praise. That a startup (one!) that got acquired used Lisp doesn't prove anything. Many many more succesful startups did not. And its not like it was the most intriguing technologically or acquisition-value wise. That's not the point. The point was that they had a product that they could improve more rapidly than their competitors; a fact that they readily attribute to it being written in Lisp. Just about any other working Lisp programmer probably has a similar story. And I do not put forward elisp as a "good" language. It is a Lisp, and the success and longevity of Emacs is a testament to its Lisp underpinnings.