reikonomusha

No language magically solves the problem of organizing code without leadership. Python, C++, etc. all suffer just as much, if not more.

Modern LLMs have absolutely no issue with writing reasonably good Common Lisp without a kilometer of prompts. It's true that you did need this a year or two ago, but not anymore. In fact, LLMs can even write Coalton pretty well if you prefer strong, static typed all the way through.

Lisp isn't some language wild west lacking style and idioms—regardless of whether there's a "go fmt" for it or not. Most open source Lisp code is quite standard and "boring": functions and classes/structs following canonical indentation.

Ah, that makes sense. I read the original comment, "you can define them," as meaning one can add static types to Common Lisp programs. But designing and building entirely new systems, at least ones that should work for a large class of practical programs, is not easy. I agree with you then.

Packaging software for Linux users is a nightmare. Unless

- your program is extraordinarily simple

- you can manage to statically link libc

- you can ship (or statically link) all .so files

- you can ensure your app can run in a sandbox

- you limit the distros you build for

- your app can be built by whatever is on flathub

etc., most solutions to shipping software simply don't work out-of-the-box. Despite the kernel being reasonably stable, userspace APIs are a mess of incompatible.

The problem is that the intersection between your business's interests and the interests of the small pool of available developers is usually very small.

Building banking apps? Well, even if it's Haskell, the Haskellers were dreaming of GPU compiler jobs, not banking front ends. So you're probably down to literally 5 qualified people on earth who want your job.

But then 3 of those 5 don't want to relocate or have other operational desires that require you to re-think how you run your team, and 2 of those 5 believe so strongly in supply-demand that their salary should be 3x the industry average.

Many companies, including Jane Street, come to the same conclusion: If you really want developers of a niche language, you have to be very good at finding smart people who don't know the language and training them.

Haskell is typically terse in addition to expressive. So "tight" seems more apt.

Lisp is traditionally not so terse, but still expressive.

For a brief period of time over 60 years ago, yes. :)

For all practical purposes, the syntax of Lisp isn't just a cosmetic choice, though.

<meta>I've noticed this more recently on HN. Either the top comment has to be some negative sentiment even if seemingly good-faith, or a comment on something completely tangential (like the color of the website), or a comment on their own project that's related to the thing posted but it feels more like look-at-me advertising rather than earnestly engaging with the submission. Some of these go against the guidelines, but maybe my own comment here does as well.

As of writing, the top comment is "Why?" like the project has to defend itself, on a website that's notionally about curious, interesting, and insightful discussions.</meta>

I used Notepad++ way back when, sort of before I "graduated" to Emacs and the like. I don't know how it's evolved over the past two decades (I presume, intentionally, not much) or what attracts its fanbase anymore. I know I liked it because it felt like a substantial jump from notepad.exe without feeling bloated and slow. At the time, some of the competition felt sluggish while Notepad++ felt nimble.

What do people love about Notepad++ that still isn't really addressed by the "less humble" editors out there?