(no title)
mbutterick | 11 years ago
As I allude there, Paul Graham’s writings about Lisp (mostly in Hackers & Painters) helped persuade me to explore Lisp languages. (Those writings have also persuaded many others.)
In particular, Arc's reliance on Racket persuaded me to take a serious look at Racket. So leaving aside quibbles about what “on top of” means — is Clojure not built “on top of” the JVM? Python “on top of” C? — Paul’s choice of Racket was influential in my choice too. (As it has been for many others.)
As for software being “built in [one’s] head,” that seems facially true of any software. The core thesis of “Beating the Averages” is that the tool you choose to get it out of your head and into the world matters. Having now had my own Lisp revelation, I not only buy Paul’s thesis, but I even think it could be strengthened: Lisp permits the implementation of a whole category of ideas that aren’t possible in other languages.
Moreover, Paul wrote that essay nearly 14 years ago. Since then, Lisps have gotten somewhat more popular (Clojure has led the pack). But as I say in the article, as a group, Lisps remain way behind the programming mainstream. So ultimately, my goal is not to evangelize for Racket and exclude other Lisps. I know Racket better because that’s what I use. But more people using all of them would be a great thing.
ozten|11 years ago
The total number of developers who know a Lisp may have grown, but the total population of developers is also rapidly growing.
Measured as a % of language popularity, I'd expect it is largely flat, despite awesome mass-media efforts like Seibel's Practical Common Lisp http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
technomancy|11 years ago
These days with more regional conferences starting it's nearly in the twenties, and attendance at Strange Loop (which has had lots of keynotes by lispers) is several thousand and growing.
dang|11 years ago