- to use a lisp on large-scale production software, the developers need to be experts, while the same isn't true of other languages

- if you just commit long enough, a lisp will come through in the end

- unless it's the wrong lisp (without specifying what is a right lisp)

- large corporations don't want to use languages that are powerful or flexible, they prefer weak and rigid languages

- lisps don't provide cheap, large-scale, easy to synchronize development at an industrial scale

- other languages became successful because they targeted their audience

So let's invert that and derive the ideal audience for a lisp that you just described:

- not on a large scale project or team (something you can write 80% over a weekend in Python is too large)

- already at an expert level

- will commit to a path even when it's not working

I'm not saying this to bash your statement, but I think you've provided a microcosm of why not to use Lisp. From a language selection standpoint, there are pitifully few consequential projects that scope to the ideal for a lisp. There's no obvious as to why its better, and there is to all of the alternatives. Based on this, it's possible to make easy arguments as to why to choose Asm, Perl or 80's Basic over a lisp that make those languages look like great ideas for almost any project where a lisp might be proposed.

And nobody still has backed up a downvote with a pointer to a good lisp project. Not even one. I can probably find a list of ongoing MS-Basic projects without too much fuss, but it's like doing dentistry on an angry tiger to get something similar from the lisp community.

That's not what I said.

> - if you just commit long enough, a lisp will come through in the end

That's not what I said.

> - unless it's the wrong lisp (without specifying what is a right lisp)

That's not what I said.

> large corporations don't want to use languages that are powerful or flexible, they prefer weak and rigid languages

That's not what I said.

> - lisps don't provide cheap, large-scale, easy to synchronize development at an industrial scale

That's not what I said.

If you want honest discussions, then you might want not to distort what I've said. Things are not black or white.

> And nobody still has backed up a downvote with a pointer to a good lisp project. Not even one

* Google did the core of their flight search engine in Lisp.

* DWAVE writes the OS for their quantum processor project in Lisp.

* American Express checks credit card transactions using a rule-based system in Lisp

* PTC sells a large CAD system, written largely in Lisp

etc. etc.

1. "At reddit were not really Lisp experts" - this implies that they would have been successful if they were Lisp experts. Not needing to be an expert in a language to be productive is a powerful reason to use something that's not a Lisp.

2. "They wrote not more than a sketch of the site in Lisp and at the first sight of problems they switched to a language/implementation they were more familiar with" - implies that they didn't commit long enough to the language and that it would have worked out in the end. Reddit says their code wasn't even all that complicated, and they were already hitting huge intractable problems. Problems large enough that moving to an entirely different language was a better solution than continuing to fight with tools that didn't work.

3. "'GNU CL' was never a GNU project as such. GNU CL based on KCL/AKCL and has been used in a few applications. It never has been a focus of the GNU project - it's merely published under their umbrella." - This implies that GNU CL is not a good Lisp. What is a good Lisp? No idea, apparently there isn't one because RMS had to roll his own. Having to write your own dialect of a language to be productive does not sound like a good language.

4. "Large corporations are not interested to use 'powerful' languages like Lisp. They are more interested in cost cutting, outsourcing, offshoring, 'industrialized' software production, cheap supply of labor, ..." - you use a lot of words describing what large corporations want. The implication is that Lisp doesn't offer or support these things or corporations would be using one.

5. "Plus, as I said above, in many companies 'powerful' and 'flexible' is not the most important criteria when selecting languages and tools. Java got successful because of other qualities: being developed by SUN (then Google and IBM) for enterprise software development." See #4 above.

And yes, anybody can go to the "Applications" section for Common Lisp on Wikipedia. What's more interesting is that Lispers, part of the Lisp community, can't just name some interesting projects off the cuff. Most developers can rattle off a list of interesting projects in languages they have only tangential relationship with.

If you look around in the Lisp community, you see lots of "stuck at square one" with hundreds of implementations of some kind of Lisp, or Lisp compilers, or Lisp written in Foo language or Lisp-likes, but not a real big ecosystem beyond that.

Why don't lispers just say "Hunchentoot", "Maxima" or something (Heck HN is written in a Lisp last I checked). These are legitimate, interesting projects!

Lisp is exactly where it has been for decades, despite being taught formerly in major schools, have the same access to the internet and community as elsewhere and having supposed benefits that make it "better". But something like 90% of the time, when developers have to choose a language to work in, they don't choose a Lisp.

It's not powerful if it doesn't solve people's problems.

This bizarre cognitive dissonance among lispers is a real problem for the community and a big part of why the language is stuck in such a quagmire.

> Nope, it's actually what you said, point for point in the same order.

I told you what I said.

>1. "At reddit were not really Lisp experts" - this implies that they would have been successful if they were Lisp experts. Not needing to be an expert in a language to be productive is a powerful reason to use something that's not a Lisp.

'this implies' nothing. Speak about yourself. YOU infer something from what I said.

I said 'a'. You infer that this also means 'b' and tell me that I said 'b'. What kind of strange discussion tactics is that?

> this implies that they would have been successful if they were Lisp experts.

That's YOUR opinion, not mine. You are not listening to what I say.

> 2. "They wrote not more than a sketch of the site in Lisp and at the first sight of problems they switched to a language/implementation they were more familiar with" - implies that they didn't commit long enough to the language and that it would have worked out in the end. Reddit says their code wasn't even all that complicated, and they were already hitting huge intractable problems. Problems large enough that moving to an entirely different language was a better solution than continuing to fight with tools that didn't work.

A beginner in a language sees a 'huge intractable' problem. Okay...

> 3. "'GNU CL' was never a GNU project as such. GNU CL based on KCL/AKCL and has been used in a few applications. It never has been a focus of the GNU project - it's merely published under their umbrella." - This implies that GNU CL is not a good Lisp.

Why do you say it is not a good Lisp?

> What is a good Lisp? No idea,

Now you are discussing arguments you made up with yourself. Sorry, you are wasting my time.

> apparently there isn't one because RMS had to roll his own. Having to write your own dialect of a language to be productive does not sound like a good language.

> 4. "Large corporations are not interested to use 'powerful' languages like Lisp. They are more interested in cost cutting, outsourcing, offshoring, 'industrialized' software production, cheap supply of labor, ..." - you use a lot of words describing what large corporations want. The implication is that Lisp doesn't offer or support these things or corporations would be using one.

> 5. "Plus, as I said above, in many companies 'powerful' and 'flexible' is not the most important criteria when selecting languages and tools. Java got successful because of other qualities: being developed by SUN (then Google and IBM) for enterprise software development." See #4 above.

> And yes, anybody can go to the "Applications" section for Common Lisp on Wikipedia. What's more interesting is that Lispers, part of the Lisp community, can't just name some interesting projects off the cuff. Most developers can rattle off a list of interesting projects in languages they have only tangential relationship with.

I've written down these examples without looking at Wikipedia. Maybe you need to do that. Not me.

> If you look around in the Lisp community,

Where? The 'Lisp community' is extremely diverse.

> you see lots of "stuck at square one" with hundreds of implementations of some kind of Lisp, or Lisp compilers, or Lisp written in Foo language or Lisp-likes, but not a real big ecosystem beyond that.

That's why there are languages like Common Lisp, which have mature implementations and allow code sharing between implementations.

> Why don't lispers just say "Hunchentoot", "Maxima" or something (Heck HN is written in a Lisp last I checked).

I gave you other examples. American Express 'Authorizer's Assistant', or PTC's 'CREO are Lisp applications, too. DWAVE's quantum computer also.

Great, if you can name more. We can play this game a long time.

> These are legitimate, interesting projects!

The applications I told you about are legitimate, interesting projects.

> Lisp is exactly where it has been for decades, despite being taught formerly in major schools, have the same access to the internet and community as elsewhere and having supposed benefits that make it "better". But something like 90% of the time, when developers have to choose a language to work in, they don't choose a Lisp. It's not powerful if it doesn't solve people's problems.

You are thinking in some bizarre way that developers need to choose Lisp. There are literally thousands of programming languages out there.

Why are not more people driving a Mercedes S-class or the recent BW beetle. Aren't they supposed to be good cars? 99% of the time drivers are choosing another car. This is all pointless.

> This bizarre cognitive dissonance among lispers is a real problem for the community and a big part of why the language is stuck in such a quagmire.

Maybe the bizarre cognitive dissonance is in YOUR head?

Until lispers like yourself can get over these mental blocks, Lisp will continue to not be chosen as a computing tool. Right now it's requires too many qualifications, more downsides than up, and the community has deluded itself into being comfortable with those issues, and excusing them, rather than fixing them.

It's a cool language family, but it has lots of problems, and the state of denial the community is in about those problems won't solve them. Unfortunately, it's also a community of ideological purists who can't see the problems with their religion to fix them.

Lispers are right, once you commit to a Lisp, and it 'clicks' something in your thinking process changes, and I'm pretty sure it's not a good change.

edit and goodness, Amex doesn't use the lisp Auth Assistant anymore. What is this? 1991? You can stop bringing it up, they moved away from Lisp just like everybody else. And it never provided more than summarized database information as part of the larger authorization enterprise.

Almost every single one of these examples is no longer relevant or decades old http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?CommercialLispApplications

It's far more important for there to be new, or well maintained projects than to continue to rely on old, irrelevant glories that have long been surpassed by something else. Go out and write some and put them up on github! Do something interesting!