Common Lisp is too hard.

I still can't get my head around prefix notation. I heard Scheme is easier though. Seriously, why do practitioners of Lisp-like languages claim it's so good? I honestly cannot see the big deal, it's an old, slow, awkward and overall clunky language to use.

Read SICP, newfag.

>>2
How about giving arguments other then "lol read sicp." Explain, what's so good about CLisp/Scheme? If it's so good, why aren't more projects written in it? Today, it's all Java, C++, C, or one of the .NET languages. As far as I know, people only use the Lisp-like languages for small, shell-type tasks / cgi scripts, and even then there are far more suitable languages available (Python, Perl, etc.)

>>3
lol read sicp.

>>3
As far as I know, people only use the Lisp-like languages for small, shell-type tasks / cgi scripts, and even then there are far more suitable languages available (Python, Perl, etc.)
Use Erlang instead. Built-in language features to guarantee high-availability via load-distribution across a cluster. Arguably cooler than Scheme, if I may blaspheme.

>>1
>I still can't get my head around prefix notation. I heard Scheme is easier though.
You realize they use the exact same notation, right? And now can you possibly find it hard to grasp? Instead of foo(bar) it's (foo bar).

>>3
Sigh... don't call it CLisp. It's Common Lisp or CL. ComLi may be acceptable. But CLISP is something else.

http://www.itasoftware.com/ is building an airline reservation system.

Some guys in Hungary recently went online with some government data collection software to aid in budget planning.

>>6
First link doesn't mention implementation language. Fabrication until further evidence is provided. I bet any money it's implemented in Java.
Also, source for the second one?
In any event, I'm still not convinced lisp-like languages are useful at all.

there's seriously something wrong with you if you look at prefix notation and decide it doesn't make any sense.

>>7
See Dan Weinreb's posts on comp.lang.lisp for the first. See c.l.l for the second as well.