But the thing is.. the very same thing could be said of most other language enthusiasts.

Look at all the endless hype from Python and Ruby fans (especially when they compare their favorite language to Perl).

Or look at some OCaml or Haskell fanboys and their attitude that static typing is The True Way and only ignorant savages would prefer a dynamically typed language.

And this doesn't even touch on the vi vs Emacs holy wars.

There's plenty of fanboyishness, exclusivity, and and chastisement of outsiders in many computer fields. And I dare say it's not really limited to computers either. I'm not sure if "cultish" is really the most appropriate term, but I feel no offense at it.

The whole discussion reminds me of these images:

http://www.deimeke.net/dirk/blog/uploads/G7WyP.gif

http://www.rubyinside.com/holiday-fun-how-programming-langua...

they don't let anything new in their language.

Common Lisp is a standard, changing it requires tremendous resources, and provide little actual value, if you have some language extension you want added to the language, put it in a library, it will be much cheaper and much more useful that way.

they stick to s-expressions like they are the holy grail. We stick to s-expressions because they provide tremendous value. They are just more useful than traditional syntax.

they stick to the funny function names as if they were given by god. Common lisp has over a thousand symbols, and only a handful of them i would consider funny, and you are complaining about them? And you accuse us of nitpicking?

The rest of your rant is more of the same bullshit. How can you say you like lisp, and then continue to talk uninformed ignorant bullshit?

I beg you to differ. The original, McCarthy Lisp was a succinct, powerful, flexible, dynamic language based on a small set of axioms.

Through times, a lot has been thrown out for sake of performance (which was understood to require compilation). Um, well, in case of Lisp, it means a lot of cruft has been added (some say, bolted onto) -- the simplicity etc.etc. was lost. Those days functions aren't even lists anymore, and scoping is lexical!

With a few notable exceptions. Which are either hold-outs, or back-to-the-roots/back-to-what-worked-better efforts.

Arc is closer to the original Lisp. Also, is more pleasing to use. Not a coincidence.

p.s. Arc is more pleasing to use to you, I would certainly not choose it over common lisp or clojure, but maybe over scheme.

The simple syntax of Lisp has only one purpose: easy programmatic manipulation (reading, writing, transformation). I.e., less boilerplate. Let me spell that out for you: EASIER MANIPULATION, LESS BOILERPLATE. Elitist much?

There isn't Yet Another Parser Toolkit Of The Week in the Lisp world, there isn't Yet Another Lexer Utility Of The Month in the Lisp world.

Seriously, writing a bunch of parentheses isn't much harder than writing intricate, complex C-like (C++, Java etc.) syntax structures. How the heck did simplicity became synonym of elitism in the subject of Lisp syntax?

See: many modern languages which have a functional influence but more syntax (Scala, Ruby, Groovy, etc., etc.)

Ruby.

And it's not elitist - it's just not your taste.

P.S. Im starting my own lisp cult, called the cult of the mythical lisp cult, our goal will be to find the holly grail of programming language flame wars: evidence of the mythical lisp cult. See, a joke about lisp, and its recursive too :D