🚀 go-pugleaf

Several people have claimed that CommonLisp is hard to learn, that
the manual is poorly written, and so on.  A year ago I started on Lisp,
having been a 'traditional' programmer (you know, algol, pli, stuff like
that -- please no witticisms about the inevitable state of my brain after
that).  The lisp I started on was Common Lisp, and the book I used was
Steele's.  Apart from a few type-setting problems (notably the fact that
the function subjects don't stand out, a fact which has been apologized for)
the book is that rare combination -- readable, good enough for a first-timer,
and good enough for a reference text.  The language itself is not hard
to learn, with the exception of the hot water packages can get you into.
Since then, I have been exposed to Zetalisp, Interlisp, Psl, and have read
the MacLisp manual (but not used it).  All these others have problems
in the language (inconsistencies, odd extra or missing features, strange
'historical' names or functionality ...) and their manuals vary from the
very worst of the genre to nearly-as-good as Steele's.  I think that
there will be a lot of new Lisp programmers over the next few years --
many more than the entire current lisp community -- and that the
common lisp effort, supplying a consistent, standard and well-documented
language has done the whole community a great favour.  So I say --
Common Lisp is not hard to learn, the cleaning-up of names and functionality
that was done was long overdue, and the book is excellent.

Is Common Lisp now the perfect language (or even the perfect lisp)?  If
you are searching for one of these, enjoy the search;  the destination
may prove elusive ...