🚀 go-pugleaf

rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jan 3, 6:05�pm, Tim Harig <user...@ilthio.net> wrote:
>> On 2011-01-03, Didier Verna <did...@lrde.epita.fr> wrote:
>>
>> > Nathan <nbeen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Matz himself admitted that ???...Ruby is a bad rip-off of Lisp... But it
>> >> is nicer to ordinary people.???
>>
>> > This misconception that you must be exceptionally clever to learn and
>> > use Lisp really hurts the language and the community.
>>
>> What hurts the LISP community far more is the zealotry of its members,
>> their insistance that LISP is the *only* tool for *every* job, and their
>> agressiveness in trying to push it off on to everybody else -- whether
>> everybody else happens want it or not. �Whether this is indicitive
>> of the entire community or simply the result of those most apparent,
>> I cannot say; but, it leads to the overall impression that the LISP
>> community is narrowminded and neophobic. �Who would want to be part of
>> such a community?
>
> There are more mundane reasons -- like unsuitability of lisp as a
> distribution platform
> [See http://www.newartisans.com/about-me.html where John Wiegley
> explains why he switched from lisp to C++ for his program ledger ]

I saw no explanation, only the statements that he "found Common Lisp
unsuitable as a distribution platform."  

Perhaps it was just him being unable to find an implementation of Common
Lisp suitable as distribution platform.  I've got the impression a lot
of people are able to find such implementations of Common Lisp, to
distribute and deploy their applications, be it free software
implementations or commercial implementation.



In anycase, he gives no justification.

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.