> This is typical Lisper fare.

I see you associated an identity with him and then attempted to apply it in a narrow, derogatory manner, but in my exploration of Lisp and its community, I have not encountered some of his arguments before. It might be more useful in general to avoid applying silly stereotypes to people. Tim does not represent people who use Lisp.

> Open source math packages and academic software isn't
> "industry". Sorry.

Strawman argument and pretty selective (perhaps because of bias?) -- he also mentioned "Google just bought a
company that developed in lisp.", and just because he did not list a ton of other commercial projects out there does not invalidate his point. Your ignorance of money-making Lisp projects does not make them nonexistent.

I agree with you on the matter of libraries/modules/packages being nice. I like that CL-WHO is available to the community for language templating; that DRAKMA can help me with web browsing, cookies, and so forth. There are a lot of useful Lisp libraries out there. I am not convinced by you or others that the small number is representative of anything, given that the language seems to have a ton of nice built-ins. I have yet to fail to accomplish something I wanted to try in Lisp, and I am hardly an experienced Lisp user.

And I have run into a plethora of libraries in other languages that are almost garbage or at least not good enough for my needs. I have work to do, and people waste it by spamming me with half-wrung libraries... so many options, so few gems. The presence of tons of libraries does not make me jump for joy. I just want things that work.

Like you, I felt the author's argument was a little overboard with regards to packages, although there is a small point to it: It is easy to create some of these DSLs in Lisp, so easy that you might just roll it yourself instead of rely on some random person's library/package to do it the way that makes sense to you. On the other hand, I don't personally want to write a network graph package; I am lazy and would like a nice, commonly-used, peer-maintained solution.

But consider this, too, about CL: With CFFI/UFFI, you have easy access to any compiled library out there. If you were using C, you would import a header file to use that library. In Lisp, you write a header-file-like module to import it. Done deal. No need to reinvent the wheel. Lisp can integrate with stuff produced by other languages.

> Just because your "domain specific language" is forced to
> be sexps, certainly doesn't make it superior, IMO.

What makes it superior is: It is immensely easier to do it in Lisp and with more parsing potential than lex/yacc (and what a great example of something ugly); "easier" is an opinion word, but I think if you try both approaches with a good amount of experience in both, you would see the difference. Nobody contests that other languages absolutely lack preparsers. However, Lisp continues to be worlds ahead of the crowd in terms of the integration and ease of its parsing features, and you do not have to import a third-party library in order to get them.

I suspect that fundamentally, it has to do with the language itself being like writing code in a syntax tree. Of course, Lisp provides you the ability to change this.

A second reason for this superiority -- and tackling another comment you made ("the idea that everything must be done with the same tool is a crazy idea") -- is that you do not have to use a second language in order to get that bonus. You have all the weight and power of a full-fledged language behind you to make whatever transforms you feel you need for your parsing task. And that language is the same language you are parsing. It might be hard to grasp how important this is at a glance, and again, it comes down to trying it out.

Are people saying everything MUST be done with the same tool? That sounds silly to me. I have never heard/read that. But it is certainly nice if you can, and it is within Lisp's power. Imagine writing JavaScript (PARENSCRIPT) in Lisp; suddenly you have the ability to use macros, as provided by Lisp, and you can make writing in JavaScript less annoying.

I do not care if people use Lisp, except to suggest that it is likely in your best interest -- for all domains -- to incorporate its concepts and the language itself. It is not like there is some kind of contest going on where Yegge's points, Tim's points, your points, or my points are going to choose some winner.