Received: by 10.68.66.3 with SMTP id b3mr737531pbt.3.1315968776408; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Path: m9ni5797pbd.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Toby Thain Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Future of lisp? Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <62663f4e-eec0-47f2-85e7-b5ba6ed123bf@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> <877h68pinp.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <70029913-cca4-465a-8da9-0d7c069437c8@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> <9d3fshFthgU1@mid.individual.net> Reply-To: comp.lang.lisp@googlegroups.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.124.60.150 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1315968776 14562 127.0.0.1 (14 Sep 2011 02:52:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 02:52:56 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <9d3fshFthgU1@mid.individual.net> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=98.124.60.150; posting-account=PPzH5gkAAAAHEC4yUVc-0eQpq5EOMM1Y User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sunday, 11 September 2011 06:17:03 UTC-4, Eric Wolf wrote: > Toby Thain writes: > > > On Saturday, 20 August 2011 04:54:34 UTC-4, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > >> Bigos writes: > >> > >> > While I'm at it, I would like to ask one question? Why Lisp, despite > >> > being so easy in terms of syntax and other language related stuff, is > >> > so difficult when it comes to its ecosystem, is some sort of elite > >> > Lispers conspiracy to eliminate lazy and not so clever programmers? > >> > >> Yes. Read again: > >> > >> "Where Lisp Fails: at Turning People into Fungible Cogs." > >> http://www.loper-os.org/?p=69 > > > > The writer perfectly captured thoughts about the software "industry" > > that have been weighing on my mind in past months. Thanks for the > > citation! A very important post. > > Hmm. I think the article cited above gives the wrong impression that it > is desirable to work in a company where your colleagues are not > fungible. Imagine being the owner of a software shop. Each employee can > leave the company any time he wants, therefore each employee must be > fungible. > > It would be irresponsible to depend the existence of a company (and > therefore the jobs of the other employees) on a single employee. (Thats > what it means having a not fungible employee.) This seems a terribly one-sided analysis. Yet the employee has to cripple his entire professional development in order that the employer's convenience is maximised? Without question? No wonder software jobs suck exactly as described in the post. > > -- Eric > > > > > --Toby > > > >> > >> -- > >> __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ > >> A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.