|
I think we are talking past each other, and I think it's because you're fixated on and aggravated by a premise I did not stipulate, which is that Lisp is superior to other languages, and as such, you're interpreting "superlative" as "the best software ever written", instead of how you're supposed to interpret it, which is "the best software written in Lisp in the past 10 years", which is precisely what I referred to. In isolation and without context: We do not need software written in Lisp. Nothing compels us to choose Lisp as a language to express programs that solve problems. If we want a non-UNIX, non-C ecosystem, then what we need is software, not hardware. Lisp is one type of previously proven ecosystem that works. So it is reasonable to discuss that as a potential option, which is partly the topic of the article we both are posting comments to. I argue that if we want a Lisp ecosystem, we need better and more comprehensive software written in Lisp. If we don't want a non-UNIX, non-C ecosystem, then we needn't discuss writing software in Lisp (or Smalltalk or ...) as a possible solution to that (non-)problem. In any case, I simply argue that old hardware or even obsolete operating systems aren't really a productive thing to talk about in this context, except on a case-by-case basis. Again, regarding "superlative", the word is in reference to last-decade Lisp software alone, which I contend describes Kandria. I don't even attempt to compare software written in Lisp
to the entire universe and history of software, which it seems you're doing, but doesn't seem pertinent to the discussion. (Though, to be clear, even when comparing to all of that, I still think you're wrong. But we can argue to no end about our own subjective opinions.) |