Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel-eecis!netnews.com!news.enteract.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!torn!kwon!watserv3.uwaterloo.ca!undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca!not-for-mail
From: papresco@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod)
Subject: Re: Why lisp failed in the marketplace
Sender: news@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (news spool owner)
Message-ID: <E5zD8A.KL4@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 01:24:09 GMT
X-Newsposter: Pnews 4.0-test50 (13 Dec 96)
References: <01bc13dc$cfaa2b20$0f02000a@gjchome.nis.newscorp.com> <vfr750E5o4tx.G8y@netcom.com> <E5txoy.n6E@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> <vfr750E5w1wx.G4J@netcom.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo Computer Science Club
Lines: 37
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.lisp:25657 comp.lang.scheme:18852

In article <vfr750E5w1wx.G4J@netcom.com>,
Will Hartung <vfr750@netcom.com> wrote:
>A lot of this is based upon, I believe, first impressions. At a
>glance, Lisp looks so different to someone experienced in a more
>conventional language, they immediately make it more difficult because
>it LOOKs like its more difficult.

I agree that this is just a first impressions thing. The syntax is not
really very difficult. But programmers will naturally gravitate towards
languages that are close to what they know. Now that I know Scheme, I'll
probably learn CL when I get a chance. But I still have no interest in
braving Mount APL. On the other hand, if I knew J, I would probably tackle
APL when I had an opportunity.

The parenthesis make Lisp-family functional languages seem more divergent
than they have to. Perhaps new languages should be specified with the
syntax and semantics more distinct so that people can experiment a little 
more.

>I appreciate Eriks point about not WANTING more Joe Programmers
>jumping in the pool. Since Lisp is a little more unconventional, less
>mainstream, only truly motivated people focus on it, so one could
>almost say that what Lisp programmers ARE available are better at what
>they do, because they WANT to be where they are, and need to work at
>it. 

If all of the Joe Programmers who ignore Lisps were people I felt were
incompetent or stupid, I wouldn't care. But many of them are smart and
knowledgable. It is often the smartest people who say either: "I am
smart enough that I can code in any language, so I will use whatever is
most convenient (i.e. whatever is installed, has the best platform
support, has already been purchased by management, ...)" or "I am smart
enough that I do not trust anyone else to manage my memory, or fix up
my tail recursions as well as I do."

 Paul Prescod

