After this article I think I'm starting to see a pattern between all the people arguing and going on an on about how it is better. I'm starting to pity them a bit, to be honest. I believe they are missing a point that I'm only starting to see when I look at all of them as a set, but more on that later.
I particularly did not like this article because I felt that it set up a problem that it doesn't solve. It argues against the old manager who thinks he knows best about technology for some project, but It does little work on addressing the issue and just dismisses it through a tangent at the end after going on and on about Lisp superiority. I understand how complaining about those managers is a rhetorical tool to shove an article about how lisp programs are whatever times shorter in size than other programming languages, but I think it is unfair to address the dumb it manager problem with just "quit working for the dumb manager and go use a powerful language to solve a hard problem". That would just allow for some poor young programmer to take that job and it would do nothing to locally change the local situation.
What I would like to hear from these authors (I know they are probably already doing it in some other outlet and it would ve my duty to look for those) is something more consructive towards the programming languages they care so much about. I'd like to see why and how other languages differ from Lisp's fundamental underlying structure, and why that makes them worse and less powerful. I would like to know about the struggle between a language being designed around the machines it runs in and the information problems it is supposed to solve.
I particularly did not like this article because I felt that it set up a problem that it doesn't solve. It argues against the old manager who thinks he knows best about technology for some project, but It does little work on addressing the issue and just dismisses it through a tangent at the end after going on and on about Lisp superiority. I understand how complaining about those managers is a rhetorical tool to shove an article about how lisp programs are whatever times shorter in size than other programming languages, but I think it is unfair to address the dumb it manager problem with just "quit working for the dumb manager and go use a powerful language to solve a hard problem". That would just allow for some poor young programmer to take that job and it would do nothing to locally change the local situation.
What I would like to hear from these authors (I know they are probably already doing it in some other outlet and it would ve my duty to look for those) is something more consructive towards the programming languages they care so much about. I'd like to see why and how other languages differ from Lisp's fundamental underlying structure, and why that makes them worse and less powerful. I would like to know about the struggle between a language being designed around the machines it runs in and the information problems it is supposed to solve.