I applaud that you want to become an expert. Emacs is a good example of a tool that takes a long time to learn, but this effort is well amortized. My intention was not to criticize C++, I think it's the right choice if you have the right people, as is Common Lisp. At the same time, tools with a high barrier to entry obviously have a harder time gaining adoption. Take the LOOP facility, it's obviously powerful, but it baffles beginners.

One issue though. While becoming an expert in C++ can be a fruitful career path, all of the people I know who are using CL for work, are consultants working to maintain old projects. I'm not qualified to say how much money is in this or if it's any fun, but in my experience it's really hard to get a company to agree to CL, because of lack of people. That's why adoptability matters so tremendously.

As for whether CL was designed by a committee or not, I was trying to communicate Richard Gabriel's account at http://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/clcrit.pdf

Tools like Emacs and Common Lisp are exactly the kind that I actively seek. I needed novice friendly tools four years ago when I was starting with python, I don't need them anymore. You're a novice only once, you're an expert for life.

I was already playing around with Scheme and Clojure for at leas two years when I started learning Common Lisp, very few things have been exceptionally hard or foreign for me, loop was definitely not one of them.

That's the reason I get so hot-headed about these kinds of things. I have invested a lot in bettering my self as a programmer. Articles like this one insult years of hard work, and my own effort is just a very small part of it. People have been building these tools and communities for 50 years before I even knew what a computer was, dismissing it so lightheartedly pisses me off. I only hope others understand. Maybe I just have too high standards. Comes with being young I guess :)