>>2
It could be better, but I think CL is a pretty good collection of the wisdom that accumulated with older Lisps. Use it enough and you'll end up seeing how useful certain seemingly redundant features are. Most other Lisps are missing features CL had, altough a lot could be implemented in those languages, but guess what? They're not. If something is not in the standard library, it won't as easily become common practice. I've seen various kinds of code duplication in Scheme libraries, sometimes even somewhat excessive, which could easily be handled by a CL one-liner. The CL standard does contain many age-old Lisp coding practices which proved useful to many Lisp coders in their time. Discarding history only means you'll be doomed to repeat it again, for better or for worse.
>>1
He disses on PG, as if dissing on PG means dissing the language or the coders using it. Most people I've seen using Lisp don't have the exact same reasons for using it that PG does. Sure, Lisp does make certain kinds of programs much easier to write for me, and it will be an invaluable tool in my toolbox, but that's about it.
LISP
in spirit if not in syntax
Oh, so he shows that he hasn't written much, if any Lisp code, and he's one of those weenies that think of it as ``the best language ever'', but refuse to learn it or use it. Lisp has too many of those. They're not that welcome, and they're not Lispers themselves.
As for the comment:
btw. speaking of paul graham, silver bullets he promotes aren’t that well engineered or thought out themselves. common lisp is a hodgepodge standard designed by commitee
PG hates CL. Even though he wrote 2 ANSI CL books, he doesn't like CL that much. Most CLers are aware of PG's attitude towards CL.
I've scrolled through the rest of his post and didn't see anything I haven't seen stated elsewhere. I could write a couple longposts expressing my opinion on those issues, but I'll refrain.