Without being able to see this code that was easier to write in Python than Lisp it's impossible to say for sure, but it seems likely that the differentiating factor was libraries, not the core language.

For me, the Python module system and documentation wins hands down. I keep telling myself that at some point, I'm going to dive into Lisp and never look back, but Python's module system is very easy to use, and this lends itself to a very nice standard library as well as easy-to-install libraries. Not to mention that every module is well-documented often with real world examples a Google search away.

With Lisp, I have honestly tried to find good documentation on its module system, and I have tried my best to understand the workings of ASDF, but when it comes down to it, I just don't have the time to muck around with stuff that is so much more difficult. The simple fact is that if I need to get something done, it's going to be in Python for the time being, and who knows when I'll get to the point where I'm not coding against a deadline, the point where I'll be able to waste some time really learning Lisp.

No no, Microsoft + Yahoo! = Microwho? ;-)

This could be good news for startups. Suggested business plan:

1. Find something Yahoo currently does well (e.g. flickr)

2. Make a clone of it.

3. Wait for Microsoft to ruin the original.

One of the things I've tried to do differently in Arc is to design the language based on what actually happens in programs, rather than a priori theories. For example, let is for the one-variable case because I looked at a lot of CL code and found 76% of the lets bound one variable. Cond doesn't have implicit progn because I found most cond clauses didn't use it. Etc x 100.

So in reply to the a priori argument that shadowing global function names will cause problems (How big? I don't know. Big!) I reply that extensive experience has shown that it's just not a big deal.

I'll add modules eventually, of course. But it's not a high priority.

A company that's been declining for 8 quarters in a row and trades at 40 times earnings (before the Microsoft offer) is not undervalued.

Reminds me of myself and my brother playing monopoly as kids. He suggested he start with all the property, and I start with all the money.

I was young... 6 maybe, so I thought wow yeah heh I'll take all the money.

Sure, MS have cash from their dying desktop, but they still can't build web apps, or compete with google online. I'd say yahoo are almost as bad.

> (How big? I don't know. Big!)

I didn't say it was a big problem, I said it was a real problem. And the larger your code base, and the more people start sharing code, the more real it will be. It is only a matter of time before someone writes something like:

(let foo snoz (jims-macro frotz))

and gets an error of the form "42 is not a valid function" and has to spend an hour puzzling over where that error came from before realizing that Jim's macro expands into Bob's macro which expands into Ann's macro which uses a helper function called foo.

Is it a "big" problem? Maybe not. But it's a real problem, and given that one of your stated goals was to design "the 100 year language" I think it's a shame that you chose to solve it by placing the burden on the programmers. (And I use the plural advisedly here, because the potential for encountering this problem grows as the community grows and people start re-using each other's code.)

But I would reiterate that the lack of abstract data types is IMO a much bigger problem than the lack of hygienic macros. (And just so you know I'm not just sniping from the sidelines, I have proposed solutions implemented in CL which I'd be happy to help port to Arc if you agree that this is in fact a problem.)

My hope is !Microsoft.

  >> how many startups could they fund with $45 billion? 
  100? 200? 1000? why exactly do they want to be at the helm
  of a slowly dying web portal left over from the first dot com boom?

I understand the "startups are king" mentality around here, but come on. Regardless of their quarterly performance, Yahoo! is one of the biggest brand names on the web. Microsoft won't establish a bigger web presence by "funding startups."

It's simple. Half of you will all be fired and Yahoo will merge with MSN to create a monstrosity web division. The overlap in web products will create 3 tiers of service, the windows-ized integrated Live products (Live Mail, Live Search), the consumer centric Yahoo products (Yahoo Mail, Yahoo Search), and the pro-sumer products (Inktomi Search, Flickr, Delicious). This will be so confusing and stupid that after 2 or 3 years of Google eating their lunch they're fire the rest of the Yahoo staff and shutter off the Yahoo branded products in favor of the Live products.

But also, let's not kid ourselves, Microsoft could give two shits about Flickr. What they really want is Yahoo/Overture/Panama or whatever. That's the expected growth and cash cow that makes this deal possible.

in lisp you write trees.

in other languages, you write weird things that get turned into trees, seemingly by magic.

other languages seem easier to understand, to most people. this is because they have a lot of experience with all that magic -- it has become a tradition. if you're better at normal languages, go ahead and use them. i don't care. but they are not objectively easier to read, they are much harder and more complicated.

it's rare to see such simple, fundamental and spot on analysis in the tech world.

microsoft's bid on yahoo is a perfect illustration of why microsoft is doomed to failure.

how many startups could they fund with $45 billion? 100? 200? 1000? why exactly do they want to be at the helm of a slowly dying web portal left over from the first dot com boom?

i remember someone talking of microsoft and relating their situation to a victim in a horror film. we can all see the monster lurking behind them, slowly creeping in for the kill. when the sea change of personal computing really does come, whenever that may be, microsoft will not be there, they will be knee deep in shit, trying to claw themselves out of the hole that they've spent the last five years tirelessly digging.

Funny. I read this piece and was waiting for the profound statement that was going to convince me. But at the end it sounded like the message was "Google guys and gals are productive in other languages than LISP". Huh!? Not very convincing... Why do I care about them? From my point of view it's me and the machine. Google is just some company.

C is beautiful for what it is. Pure. Running on the metal.

And LISP too is beautiful for what it is. Running on abstractions.

The rest are all kind of in between.

I think the hope is: Microsoft!