Subject: Re: CL missing some modernisms...
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/03/21
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Tim Bradshaw <>
| But language comparisons are made on feature count, not on these subtle
| arguments, and the languages which have lots of features are winning
| *even though those features are useless*.

  so true.  this is why I don't want Common Lisp to win those comparisons,
  and _prefer_ it to be dropped by people who choose the winners in them.
  these people do, however, need something to "come back to" when they
  discover that they have been misled, and if Common Lisp caters to the
  popular vote, the chances are it will no longer have that quality.

  it is sufficient that people continue to discover Common Lisp, the same
  way it is sufficient that people discover classical music and even opera,
  without adding techno beats and rapping the libretto.  so what if young
  people don't get it?  most of us don't die at age 20, Madison Avenue and
  Hollywood to the contrary notwithstanding.

  "tired of useless and buggy features in the latest fad language yet?
   discover Common Lisp -- it has all you'll ever need, and no more."

  (and in the true spirit of marketing, let's make that true before they
  come running. :)