Funny my name is Marc Spitzer.  

Now why do you hide what you are unless you know what you post?

on a more serious note, you need to get your facts straight: i never
said that cltl1 was written before it was realized lisp was crap (at
least by those using it at the time). after all, the lisp they were
using back then was closely related to, but even worse than, modern
lisp. the cltl1 book simply tried to formalize existing lisp practice,
after AI acedemics refused to switch to scheme.

i'm going to answer others who replied in this message. to the guy who
suggested paragraph breaks - i will accept that as constructive
criticism. to the puke-stained twits who want capitalized sentences -
you may never understand it, but period '.' is generally enough to
denote full stop. i only use semantics-free junk in the most formal
writing.

my original intent was to let out my feelings about dimwits who run
around advocating things they don't understand, regardless of their
cause. but i'm also glad that i made my opinion on lisp known:

lisp evangelists like to dispel "rumors" about common lisp - "rumors"
that it is slow, big, unpopular, incapable of interoperating with
other systems, non-orthogonal in design and so on. if lisp is in fact
none of those things, how do you think these "rumors" got started?
don't bother answering this - i'm sure it was a conspiracy by the same
people who killed kennedy.

what would c++ users say if stroustrup said "i'm sorry, i made a big
mistake, the nonsense stops now"? the fact is, the most prominent lisp
figures eventually understood their misconceptions and turned their
backs on lisp (more or less):

+ peter norvig is into python now

+ paul graham says lisp is "awkward" in On Lisp. he also mentions
feeling like on vacation in a dentist chair, when he was working on a
lisp project (see the article about hackers and painters) - not
exactly an expression of joy.

+ guy steele - well, we just discussed him.

at least i respect these guys and their intellectual honesty. the only
people who advocate lisp now are shills for commercial implementations
and the cerebrally-challenged schmucks who believe them.

another lisp myth is that new languages can be written in it using
macros. what a nutty notion! lisp macros are nothing but c macros,
only slower, with brackets outside, and the whole lisp system
available for preprocessor abuse at compile time! again, if lisp was
the ultimate programmable programming language, why does it suck so
bad in its original "deprogrammed" state?  See what i wrote about
"defmacro" earlier.

Edi.

(defun lisp-interpeter ()
    (loop
            (print "Lisp> ") ;; prints Lisp>
            (print (eval (read))) ;; intepets Lisp
   )
) ;; not the best func. just shows how lisp is used. :)

Let him use Lisp--if he is requesting it he should be using it. I'd love it
if I could use Lisp. Forget the A.I. part--it handles pointer & memory
management. Has a garbage collector, does not have strict typing.
It allows someone who knows how to use it to write code quickly--
if your a moron it won't be good code. IMHO, management should require
developers use an ANSI, IEEE, ISO language but not force them to use
C/C++/Awk/Perl/Lisp/Scheme/Forth but let them use
the lang. that they know. -- they could get a lot more work done, and
be happy about their lang. choice.

I like Lisp because I can code on the fly, without designing my program--I
can also rewrite a running program.

+ I don't get along /w pointers, but I get along with binding issues,
lexical issues--I never dumped a core because of a Lisp problem.

But, than again I know how to use the lang.

I have read David T's 'Symbolic Computation: A Gentile Guide To Common
Lisp.' Avail. for free on-line. IMHO, one of the best books to teach a newbe
Lisp even if he never programmed before.

&

Peter Novig's 'Principals of Artificial Intelligence Programming.'

both excellent books.

If your moron read's David T's book he should understand how to use Common
Lisp--even if he never programmed before.

Peter Novig's book is an excellent overview of using Lisp for A.I.,
+ how to increase the effenceny of Lisp.

all of the other resources tend to confuse rather than enlighten.

But, I am still waiting for a good Lisp that can generate Windows EXE files,
and interface /w C/C++/Java Librarys.

IMHHTGO, the dynamic typing of vars. in Lisp makes it easier to write code
because you don't have to declear vars. in Lisp functions unless you want
to.

& why should I do what I can have my language do. :)
I want to hack, not design.

P.S.

BTW, you said you were a Lisp programmer--what turned you off to Lisp? or
are you just venting because the moron does not know Lisp? David T's book
will help him learn--iff it is possible.

(defun fact (x)
     (if   (zerop x)   ;; is x = 0
           1
           (* x (fact (- x 1))))) ;; x * fact(x-1)

int fact(int x) {
    if (x == 0) {
       return 1;
   }
    else {
       return x * fact(x-1);
   }

I can do (fact 1000) in my Lisp
and get a large many thousand digit number returned.

I can do fact(1000); in my C++/Java and
get a core dump returned. ;)

Scientists say that the concept of 'human races' is nonsense.
So where do you think racism comes from?

Would you seriously believe that C++ would scatter in all directions
just because Stroustrup denounced C++.

Have you ever met anybody actually being fond of Cobol? I haven't but
Cobol is by no means dead yet.

sacv50> the fact is, the most prominent lisp figures eventually
sacv50> understood their misconceptions and turned their backs on lisp
sacv50> (more or less):
scav50> + peter norvig
scav50> + paul graham
scav50> + guy steele

This is very amusing, but:

 - how strong is the above argument when qualified with "more or less"

 - how did the list of prominent lisp figures get to only hold 3
   persons (or is the criteria of prominence that they can be
   construed to dislike lisp)? What makes John McCarthy non-prominent
   for instance?

 - how hard is Paul Graham turning his back on lisp when he is trying
   to construct a new lisp?