> So if that's what you want, why are you not just using Erlang?

I do.

> Why are we having this discussion at all?

I saw an article praising LISP, I decided to chime in with realism because certain fandoms (LISP's included) seem very unaware of the realities of the commercial programming outside of their niche hobby language. As a senior dev (who also worked as a CTO a few times) I have learned to evaluate technology and to never wear rose-tinted glasses even for my favorite tech stacks. They became favorites based on merit and nothing else. (In fact I am starting to dislike working with Elixir for certain projects, even though I loved doing them with it in the past.)

LISP is not cutting it for commercial work in general, so I strive to bring nuance to articles (or discussions) that to me seem heavily tilted to the "I am a fan!" direction. And forgive me if "LISP has longevity" and "it's future-proof" seem like hand-waving to me. I don't see factoids, I see people reinforcing their own positive feeling based on actual factoids (like the powerful macro system and a REPL, for example).

And we keep chatting because you seem to insist that either LISP has what I deem good (disagreed, it doesn't) or that it's not important / there's no market for it (disagreed).

> There's no market for it.

You're doing post-hoc rationalization. You don't know that for a fact. I know I would have coded much more Racket and Gerbil Scheme if they had proper async runtime a la Erlang or Golang or Rust (OCaml these days as well though the story there is still unfolding after their recent 5.0 release).

> You can't do better than Erlang at "Erlang-style concurrency" by definition.

Loose definitions then. Rust and OCaml are making very serious strides. I have hope they can surpass Erlang in the next 2-5 years. Both are faster, much stricter with types (lack of those is an endless pit of bugs) and more memory-safe than Erlang (though anything with a GC like OCaml is prone to some of the nastiest problems Erlang has, like cycles between big objects but... topic for another time).

> The point of Lisp is not do X-style-anything better than X. The main benefit of Lisp is that it allows you to explore a much larger space of possible solutions in a much shorter time, which is a big win when you don't know what you want, which, I submit, is most of the time.

We finally got somewhere productive, thank you.

I use Elixir (lives in the Erlang's BEAM VM so has access to everything Erlang) for the same and I agree that being able to explore quickly is very valuable. I've only made the mistake to prototype stuff with Rust once. Never again. Nowadays I use Elixir and Golang for prototyping and the end products either remain that or get rewritten in Rust.

Also REPL story can be better with Clojure but I'll admit it at least exists, unlike that of many other languages. Startup time is not ideal but then again, neither is Erlang's sadly. Editor support I haven't checked in a long time, might be good. Library coverage is very hit and miss depending on which LISP you use. I keep hearing CL has a lot, maybe that's true but I am 50/50 there; judging by your attitude -- "it took me a day to roll it myself" -- I remain unconvinced that the library story is good, it's more like some pie-in-the-sky goodness that's eternally out of reach. Still, if I reach for LISP again in the future I'll evaluate that aspect in detail and will know for a fact.

So yeah, on the "LISP is quick to prototype stuff with" I agree completely. To me it doesn't go all the way however, hence my initial comment.

You can think of me as "dislikes anything that looks like shilling".

There is no place for feelings in our work. When I retire and if I still want to code then, maybe I'll make decisions based on feelings. Before that -- no.