>>182
Most of your post is the same fucking garbage you've been spewing the entire time, constructing some fanciful strawman of a lisper's arguments, which you've obviously never understood in the first place, and them knocking them down.
I commend your doublethink. Next step: to claim that Enterprise Blub programmers are positively selected for incompetence, and that Lisp makes programmers literally hundred times more productive, in the same post with this assertion.
Why would that be the next step, when I never took the first step you seem to think I have? You obviously have
no idea what kind of tradeoffs happen, or
why they happen, in any project whatsoever.
Or, as it happened here, you tell her that she is fucking insane, that a laundry list of features doesn't make a car design useful, that discussing features is pointless, and that the only criterion of usefulness is how actual, real cars built according to the design perform in the real world.
That is a totally ridiculous analogy because
I really use a lisp in the real world for real world things and I am not the only one. All you have to fall back on is some popularity contest. You can argue that Kim Kardashian is better than Shakespeare because material science isn't popular but I'd suspect you wouldn't take that very far. Yet that is all you have to offer so far.
I tell you: your entire mode of reasoning is wrong, it's based on a false premise, that people decide that a language is good based on a laundry list of features.
When I contrast items in a class, I look at their differences. What do you do?