Probably explains why most Lisps consist of one-man-hobbyist projects, though.
I do not agree. There is no single type system that would fit all the possible use cases.
> Probably explains why most Lisps consist of one-man-hobbyist projects, though.
No, it does not.
The good thing is that 99.999999999999% of all programs never need to be written, and there are plenty of type systems which deal well with the last 0.00000000001.
> No, it does not.
Ok, that leaves the failure of Lisp outside of hobbyist mom's basements a mystery.
This is where I lost a track of your arguments.
> Ok, that leaves the failure of Lisp outside of hobbyist mom's basements a mystery.
Lisp did not fail. It's in pretty much all the mainstream languages now.
Then maybe you should maybe spend some time studying these topics instead of acting up on HN.
> Lisp did not fail. It's in pretty much all the mainstream languages now.
This is where I lost the last doubts about the reality and your lack of closeness with it.
Chances are, I implemented more varieties of type systems than you can name.
> This is where I lost the last doubts about the reality and your lack of closeness with it.
Scala fanboys are much more detached from the reality. The reality rejected bondage&discipline languages long ago.
We ban accounts that do this repeatedly. On HN, please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
Please also don't post unsubstantive comments. That means avoiding programming language flamewars, since they're only nominally about programming and really about insults and disses.