

When the elegant and sophisticated gets rejected - sebastianconcpt
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TooAdvancedForItsOwnGood

======
sebastianconcpt
"I believe that Lisp was, in a sense, too advanced for its own good. Because
it is, as it were, pre-optimized for AI applications, and most commercial
software just doesn't need that kind of sophistication. Maybe, as the industry
and our clients mature, this mismatch will go away and Gabriel's NextLisp will
come to the fore. I'm very interested to see if the Scandinavians can do for
FP with the ErlangLanguage what they've done for Objects." \--
KeithBraithwaite

"Smalltalk's lack of popularity, on the other hand, can simply be explained,
historically, by price, and currently by bad marketing. Most newbies simply
know of Smalltalk as the ideological predecessor to Java language - they think
of it the same way they think of Cobol. Neither of these languages failed for
being "too expressive" or "too obfuscated". Perl, C Macros, and scripted Excel
Spreadsheets are used more frequently and produce maintenance horrors that
completely outdo clever Lisp macros... but they're all conceptually familiar
concepts to the users who learn to use them." \-- MartinZarate

