You use all kinds of generalizing faulty logic. This won't get you very far.

> Nope, it's actually what you said, point for point in the same order.

I told you what I said.

>1. "At reddit were not really Lisp experts" - this implies that they would have been successful if they were Lisp experts. Not needing to be an expert in a language to be productive is a powerful reason to use something that's not a Lisp.

'this implies' nothing. Speak about yourself. YOU infer something from what I said.

I said 'a'. You infer that this also means 'b' and tell me that I said 'b'. What kind of strange discussion tactics is that?

> this implies that they would have been successful if they were Lisp experts.

That's YOUR opinion, not mine. You are not listening to what I say.

> 2. "They wrote not more than a sketch of the site in Lisp and at the first sight of problems they switched to a language/implementation they were more familiar with" - implies that they didn't commit long enough to the language and that it would have worked out in the end. Reddit says their code wasn't even all that complicated, and they were already hitting huge intractable problems. Problems large enough that moving to an entirely different language was a better solution than continuing to fight with tools that didn't work.

A beginner in a language sees a 'huge intractable' problem. Okay...

> 3. "'GNU CL' was never a GNU project as such. GNU CL based on KCL/AKCL and has been used in a few applications. It never has been a focus of the GNU project - it's merely published under their umbrella." - This implies that GNU CL is not a good Lisp.

Why do you say it is not a good Lisp?

> What is a good Lisp? No idea,

Now you are discussing arguments you made up with yourself. Sorry, you are wasting my time.

> apparently there isn't one because RMS had to roll his own. Having to write your own dialect of a language to be productive does not sound like a good language.

> 4. "Large corporations are not interested to use 'powerful' languages like Lisp. They are more interested in cost cutting, outsourcing, offshoring, 'industrialized' software production, cheap supply of labor, ..." - you use a lot of words describing what large corporations want. The implication is that Lisp doesn't offer or support these things or corporations would be using one.

> 5. "Plus, as I said above, in many companies 'powerful' and 'flexible' is not the most important criteria when selecting languages and tools. Java got successful because of other qualities: being developed by SUN (then Google and IBM) for enterprise software development." See #4 above.

> And yes, anybody can go to the "Applications" section for Common Lisp on Wikipedia. What's more interesting is that Lispers, part of the Lisp community, can't just name some interesting projects off the cuff. Most developers can rattle off a list of interesting projects in languages they have only tangential relationship with.

I've written down these examples without looking at Wikipedia. Maybe you need to do that. Not me.

> If you look around in the Lisp community,

Where? The 'Lisp community' is extremely diverse.

> you see lots of "stuck at square one" with hundreds of implementations of some kind of Lisp, or Lisp compilers, or Lisp written in Foo language or Lisp-likes, but not a real big ecosystem beyond that.

That's why there are languages like Common Lisp, which have mature implementations and allow code sharing between implementations.

> Why don't lispers just say "Hunchentoot", "Maxima" or something (Heck HN is written in a Lisp last I checked).

I gave you other examples. American Express 'Authorizer's Assistant', or PTC's 'CREO are Lisp applications, too. DWAVE's quantum computer also.

Great, if you can name more. We can play this game a long time.

> These are legitimate, interesting projects!

The applications I told you about are legitimate, interesting projects.

> Lisp is exactly where it has been for decades, despite being taught formerly in major schools, have the same access to the internet and community as elsewhere and having supposed benefits that make it "better". But something like 90% of the time, when developers have to choose a language to work in, they don't choose a Lisp. It's not powerful if it doesn't solve people's problems.

You are thinking in some bizarre way that developers need to choose Lisp. There are literally thousands of programming languages out there.

Why are not more people driving a Mercedes S-class or the recent BW beetle. Aren't they supposed to be good cars? 99% of the time drivers are choosing another car. This is all pointless.

> This bizarre cognitive dissonance among lispers is a real problem for the community and a big part of why the language is stuck in such a quagmire.

Maybe the bizarre cognitive dissonance is in YOUR head?