Lisp is for Weak Programmers

I love Lisp, and my Symta, as they allows me to quickly try a lot of design ideas. That is because I have a weak brain, making harder for me to plan and try them mentally, without prototype.

But most programmers are just too smart and can prototype directly inside their brains, so when they start typing, they already know exactly what they want. Good programmers can compile code on fly inside their brains and produce assembly - it will be a lot of typing and debugging some segfaults, but they will be implementing final idea anyway.

Take Unis for example, it was conceived in a few moments, while author designed a video game, and since then Unix design is almost unchanged for decades.

>>1
While it is easier to produce efficient code using lower level languages, the design is less malleable than if it was written in a higher level language like lisp or your sympta. A programmer writing in C needs to more or less completely map out the overall design, or at least the design of many components, and then implement them one by one until all the desired functionality is present. There is very little interaction between the computer and the programmer, outside of debugging segfaults. With each group of 10000 lines of code, the program becomes more fixed and difficult to change. Unfortunately, lisp is so flexible it isn't necessarily a good language to use when attempting to produce efficient code. All definitions can be changed at run time, it is easy to force interpretation at run time. These force the lisp interpreter or compiler to be present in the executable image. Being able to redefine the + function at run time prevents efficient implementation of (+ 1 5 8), since the native add instruction would not work if + had been redefined to list.