[iseletsk]

Re-read the article, it is truly great. It is not about "profound beliefs", but about "profound beliefs, loosely held". It is not about sticking with your believes, but about validating them, and changing them based on data.

Now, talking as a technical CEO of midsize company, who coded in Lisp, and still codes: You are missing following pieces of data to justify your belief that List would be a good language for any projects for most companies: 1. Long list of successful companies with large Lisp codebases (are there examples of successful projects/companies based on such codebases) 2. Long list of examples of long term successful projects written in Lisp (how maintainable the code base will be if written in such language) 3. Long list of job positions for Lisp developers (ability to find more talent to expand the project when needed) 4. List of people in the company who can join the project (bus factor)

Management does care about how long it takes to write the code. Yet, it is only one of many aspects. So, while your beliefs might be profound, they are ... short sighted.

[lisper]

> your belief that List would be a good language for any projects for most companies

That's a straw man. I have never made that claim. I think Lisp could be effective in a lot more areas than those in which it is currently deployed, but I have never said that it would be good for "any" project or "most" companies.

What I said was that 1) in the past I have advocated for my "profound belief" that Lisp would be effective for particular projects on which I happened to be working, 2) in those circumstances in which I was able to persuade the decision-makers to actually use it, it worked spectacularly well and 3) despite 1 and 2, the net result was a net negative impact on my career.

This is not sour grapes, just a cautionary tale. Holding and advocating for profound beliefs is not always a good idea.