Lisp and Windows 3.1 are “not dead” in very different ways.
Put otherwise, as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33465597 says one could define “dead” in a way that Win 3.1 is dead but Lisp is not (not more than usual anyway).
Put otherwise, as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33465597 says one could define “dead” in a way that Win 3.1 is dead but Lisp is not (not more than usual anyway).
No
> Are there new things being developed based on lisp?
Yes.
> The analogy is not very good.
I guess I am missing your point. Care to elaborate your point?