Daniel Weinreb  <dlw@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
+---------------
| It's too late to do anything about it now, even if we stipuate
| that you're right.  If we want to make Common Lisp catch on,
| let's focus on things we can really do.  Rebranding it would
| not be a good idea.
+---------------

I concur. One thing that *might* help a little, though, is to
avoid to the extent possible the bare name "Lisp" (except when
specifically discussing the historical context) and try to
use "Common Lisp" or "CL" exclusively. That, and hammer on the
ANSI name a bit. This might(?) help the "old, dead" myth some:

    Q: "Isn't Lisp that old, slow interpreted thingy?"

    A: "Oh, no, this is ANSI-standard Common Lisp,
        the fast, *compiled* language!"

[Yes, yes, I know almost all early Lisps were compiled...]


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607