>>137
I think lisp is about as popular as it can be with programmers as retarded as they are.
Yeah. I want to point out one thing. Read some PG's essays back from early 2000s. He also says that all this stuff with lambdas and higher-order functions is waaaay over the head of an average (read: retarded) programmer. And that's why Lisp is unpopular. That's basically your argument, right?
Yet in 2011 if you want a job as a Visual Basic code monkey, you must know what an anonymous function is and how to use them to filter/map/reduce through your data. And the code monkeys learn that shit. And Lisp is still unpopular, and you still blame the fact on it being waaay to complex for an average programmer, now in some other ways, like macros, I guess. Funny, isn't it?
>>138
Yeah, this totally makes sense. Average FOSS programmers produce crappy, buggy, slow, bloated code at a snail's pace, such is the pervasive Enterprise culture. At the same time the Lisp master race churns out perfect code a couple of hundred times faster. But every evening they delete all the code they wrote during the day, because the world just isn't ready for it yet.