Let's take languages, and therefore religion, out of the picture. Suppose someone was interested in text compression. Would it not be a good first exercise to write a Huffman compressor, even though the state of the art has moved on since? I just went through this exercise and found it to be very rewarding, despite the fact that I've understood the technique for decades. So what if some blowhard arithmetic compression fanatic on the Internet thinks I'm stupid for wasting fractional bits. Screw him. It's my exercise.
Have you considered quickly knocking one out for us so that we can all see what a minimally-viable language that includes all of your essential features looks like? I confess you have piqued my curiosity, and I'd love to see a model to emulate.
Just so we're clear: I enjoy your writings on this subject. You rarely fail to expand my thinking.
If you're interested in Lisp-like PLs, then also study what happened after 1959. It sounds stupid, I know, but a lot of people don't seem to do it, which is one of the reasons for the slow progress in dynamic languages.
(I'm the author of the post.)
A better sense of history would do our industry a world of good! Heck, also be aware of what went on from 1960 through 1985. If there was some more awareness of this, a our industry would be years ahead of where it is now, instead of having wasted so many man-hours reinventing the wheel.
We're being trolled, right?
No substantive material here, just the assertion that building a minimal Lisp is worthless. If you really want to…what? Provide value? Do something worthwhile?…then build an entire language, he says.
I'm sorry, but I'll write my "hello world!" program as an MVP and learn what I can from it. If I want to become a pro at PLs, then maybe I'll build an entire language.
It's not harmful. Hair won't grow on my palms. Let me experiment.
Shrug. That post contributed to me better understanding the idea of Lisp and for that I think it deserves my upvote.