neptun

We can hardly argue about CL when you know nothing about it.

Your "arguments" seemed like common set of misconceptions about CL, the "LISP is slow" is such a folklore that I thought you forgot to write it, that's all.

You clearly haven't used the language on real world project. In CL world, there is enough people interested to develop actively several implementations.

Also, you (as others making opinion on language from blog posts) are for some reason fixated on the idea of stuff in standard library. When it's not in standard, it doesn't exist. Wrong.

You forgot that in CL, library developer has the same freedom as CL implementer. You are welcome to roll your own continuations, embedded compiler or transaction layer in your chosen popular blub for example.

All your reasons are superficial.

The "ancient" argument is not worth commenting.

Unicode has just about every CL already implemented.

Explain your reflection reservations. Heard about http://common-lisp.net/project/closer ?

You can emulate single-dispatch of Smalltalk OO in exactly 0% of wrapper code.

And tools, I hardly miss something when tracing, profiling, code completion, live upgrades, image snapshots are either solved by standard, implementation or SLIME.

Also you forgot to write that "LISP is interpreted and slow" once again.

So, you have "heard", really, I am amazed. You must really know a lot about it.

Repeating your broken popularity based measurement applied to different group of people does not make it any more correct, sorry.

> already has more useful software being written in than CL.

Like what? Those crippled Java wrappers?

> CL is a failure, admit it.

You are a failure, admit it. Since you are not popular (I don't know who you are), you are useless. (Your broken logic in practice.)