I always find it odd that people say this. If stack doesn't matter than why not start writing machine code again?

I think they meant the stack doesn’t matter in the sense of “which stack you choose from the options available”, rather than “whether you choose a stack versus writing machine code”.

You can hook into the abi for software that runs in Linux trivially. So why isn't machine code acceptable? When you give the honest answer you see why the majority of languages aren't acceptable either.

It's said mostly by people who let others make technical decisions for them. Others being either their bosses or the main stream.

That's not a good faith interpretation given the near infinite amount of options for conjuring up your favourite moneyprinting system of choice besides "machine code". SBCL is about the most arcane option you can pick and even that can work, which I think actually proves the point: it doesn't matter to any significant degree (anymore).

How else is one meant to read that language doesn't matter?

You can hook into anything that runs in Linux since it's abi is rock solid so the excuse of not being able to use the usual tech stacks doesn't hold water either.

You can use RoR, .NET, SBCL, Python, Erlang and 6502 assembly if you so desire. Sure “machine code” is one option, but that doesn’t engage with the argument in any meaningful way IMO.

Agree. ThePrimeagen had something to say about this on one of his streams, responding to someone who said "The programming language doesn't matter, only the programmer." He said something like "If that were true, let's just all go back to writing C, it's pretty good. But then you'd say 'well not exactly...'"

If this were true then half the posts in HN would have no audience :)

I think that you’re just restating the Blub point of view. You look back on the tech stacks of the past, and can see how they were worse than the ones we have today, but looking at the ones today you think that there are no more improvements to be made — or at least, none that matter.

Given that (I assume) you really do appreciate how much better the stacks of today are then the ones of the past, that seems a highly unwarranted assumption. Heck, I will tell you this: as much as a Lisp stack is better than the alternatives today, it’s not perfect. There’s a ton of future work to improve things even above the current state of the art.

But that state of the art is still better than what everyone else is using. What’s great about Lisp is that improvements are possible: with other technologies, there are more hard limits on what can be done.

Given the myriad other variables that go into a successful software business, the choice of stack and its various modes of expressing whatever transformation on whatever data it is you are mangling is so exceedingly minor a consideration that I'm close to experiencing it as professional negligence to even fuss over it to the degree it is being fussed over by many people.

I'm not dissing Lisp by any means by the way.

I understand your point and it's quite true - but hard problems require adequate tools and I wouldn't choose Java, for example, non-crud stuff.

You would never program Minecraft in it, right?

Probably for the best, but you can and he did and it’ll make you a billionaire all the same.

Personally, no. But Minecraft isn't what I'm talking about.