Re:Why I chose Common Lisp over Python, Ruby, and Clojure
by smanek on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @03:21PM
(#972821)
There are, obviously, far more ruby/python programmers. But, at the very most, I might only ever need a dozen Lisp programmers and I already know 20 that I would love to work with. Lisp is even pretty easy to pick up if you're smart know other dynamically typed, functional, and OO languages.
As a point of reference, ITA Software has no trouble hiring 100s of Lisp programmers.
Minor correction: I am a founder - and if I were to leave (while my co-founders continued), I'd make a point to find my replacement first.
Re:Why I chose Common Lisp over Python, Ruby, and Clojure
by rbanffy on Thursday December 03, 2009 @11:29AM
(#974579)
"How many lisp programmers do you have out there as compared to python or ruby programmers?"
This one is a tired argument. Any good programmer will grok Lisp (or Python, or Ruby). If your Python/Ruby programmers can't get Lisp from a couple days of training, then they are not good programmers.
And, BTW, I would risk betting they are writing FORTRAN code in Python and Ruby.
It seems like a somewhat precarious decision to let you use Lisp for this project. There's nothing supremely special about the problem you are attacking that warrants Lisp (outside of your comfort level which you clarified very clearly in your post).
Perhaps I'm just old and cynical but I've been on too many projects where the first (and therefore "lead") developer chose a particular language and architecture that in the long term was not sustainable.