>>141
No. It has nothing to do with it. I don't doubt most coders could understand anonymous functions, closures, continuations, and so forth. But the thing is that they don't understand them [...]
They do understand them now, when they are in Visual Basic. The fact that Visual Basic only got them about five years ago is completely irrelevant to your argument, unless you want to argue that the average programmer's IQ jumped up forty points since then (and then you'll have to explain why Lisp
still isn't popular). Which means that the "Lisp paradox" can't be explained by the stupidity of the average programmer. No matter how much the argument flatters you.
>>143
Well if you were as well read of PG as you say, you'd know that is almost the case.
You missed the point. Which was that
if Lisp really boosts productivity that much and is used by good programmers, then programs written in Lisp should dominate FOSS at least. It doesn't matter how many morons are churning retarded code out there, all it should take is ten or twenty good programmers equipped with the superior tool to make all the difference. Fucking Reddit was implemented in Lisp by three or so guys, who then rewrote it in Python, ha ha.
You don't need to understand Lisp to be attracted to quality software. The premise of the Blub paradox doesn't work here. So if it is not happening, then there must be something wrong with theoretical justifications of Lisp superiority, seeing that Lisp programmers totally fail to produce superior software.
Also, I find it hilarious how you get in your rut and claim that the problem is with the incompetence of the majority of FOSS programmers, because the more incompetent they are, the easier it should be for hypothetical competent Lisp programmers to leave them in the dust. You are literally arguing for my point.