I don't think anyone is avoiding Lisp on the basis of runtime performance, but, as you said, on the basis of managers sensing that it is a bit removed from the mainstream. Not only with regard to availability of competent practitioners, but also that Lisp is a whole different category of language compared to the ALGOL descendants.
But there are some companies that are willing to go with Lisp (and more importantly: stick to it) and it is because of conversations I've had with people who work on Lisp systems in these companies Lisp intrigues me: I would like to be able to do what they do.
As for literature, I am not calling into question the quality of what authors have produced or belittling the effort -- I am just pointing out that, for the most part, it isn't what Lisp *needs* and I think not seeing what Lisp needs is undeniably a bit inept when surrounded by so many mediocre texts for other languages that achieve orders of a magnitude more for the languages they cater to.
Thanks
hey Dan,
Thanks for responding.
I don't think anyone is avoiding Lisp on the basis of runtime performance, but, as you said, on the basis of managers sensing that it is a bit removed from the mainstream. Not only with regard to availability of competent practitioners, but also that Lisp is a whole different category of language compared to the ALGOL descendants.
But there are some companies that are willing to go with Lisp (and more importantly: stick to it) and it is because of conversations I've had with people who work on Lisp systems in these companies Lisp intrigues me: I would like to be able to do what they do.
As for literature, I am not calling into question the quality of what authors have produced or belittling the effort -- I am just pointing out that, for the most part, it isn't what Lisp *needs* and I think not seeing what Lisp needs is undeniably a bit inept when surrounded by so many mediocre texts for other languages that achieve orders of a magnitude more for the languages they cater to.