>>29
Yeah, as someone who has actually made it through books on Lisp, I love to bash useless, uneducated Lisp faggots (mostly college Freshmen) at every possible turn, but Yahoo's decision to rewrite all of their crap in dogshit C++ is one of the worst business moves I've ever heard of. I don't understand how it was not cheaper to just teach everyone Lisp.
Although, the only opinion I ever hear on how awful the rewrite was is Paul Graham's, who isn't exactly unbiased. So, it could have been that performance or something was the issue, and incessantly-blubbering Paul wouldn't admit it.
Also, watching Mr. East Coast Yuppie himself get upset in this discussion is hilarious:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg02367.html
My favorite excerpt:
why not just take Common Lisp and *fix* it!
Do you have any idea how long the future is? Do you really
think people in 1000 years want to be constrained by hacks
that got put into the foundations of Common Lisp because
a lot of code at Symbolics depended on it in 1988?
Ahaha, typical Lisp religious bullshit. How lame. It's especially funny that he says this, since a lot of the cruft in Common Lisp is due to the language trying to support a bunch of really lame Lisp dialects that were used by a total of 12 people in a graduate program somewhere.
Everyone doesn't use Lisp because they're stupid, eh? Hey Paul, what about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg
Idiot.