Re:Ask YC: What exactly is so hard about OO?
by DanWeinreb on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @10:05AM
(#207884)
That's an amusing idea, but it is not the case. I used Lisp extensively at the MIT AI Lab, at Symbolics (I was a founder), and now at ITA Software. The people worked together as teams very well in all places. The fact that you're using Lisp does not change the need to work together on design, conventions, architecture, etc, not to mention code reviews. The only top-grade hacker I ever worked with who could not work with others was using C++ (not that I think it matters).
Re:Ask YC: What exactly is so hard about OO?
by Hexstream on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @11:07AM
(#207949)
"I used Lisp extensively at the MIT AI Lab, at Symbolics (I was a founder), and now at ITA Software. The people worked together as teams very well in all places."
That probably tells more about the people and environment of MIT AI Lab, Symbolics and ITA Software than the team dynamics of Lisp.
I don't claim this to be a hard and fast rule. It is obviously not impossible for Lispers to work together. My theory is just that Lisp tends to attract non-team-players more than C does, and the macro effect of this is that in the main C wins. There will, of course, be exceptions.
Over on the Lisp lists I sometimes make the point that Lisp failed precisely because it was so powerful that one person could be productive enough to get useful work done by themselves. As a result, Lisp tended (and maybe still tends) to attract people who don't work well with others, whereas if you program in C you have no choice but to work as part of a team if you want to get anything done at all. At the end of the day teamwork wins, even when hobbled by inferior tools.