Are you saying that if someone built a house with an inflatable mallet and someone else built one with a nail gun there would be no difference of quality in the resulting house, or that one wouldn't be completed sooner, or be more extensible?
(Yes, you can laugh at me.)
I agree with you that all languages are tools (I love working with all kinds, actually). But aren't some tools better at some things than others? Or what would we need so many for?
I'm not saying Lisp is the nail gun and everything else is an inflatable mallet, but I do think there is a difference.
What I got out of the article is that Lisp is a tool that worked pretty darn well in a couple cases. I feel that's a good thing, because I kind of like Lisp.
I'm saying whats important is the quality of the resulting house (we maybe extending the metaphor too far here). If you can make a better/higher value/more usable house with an inflatable mallet then with a nail gun then yes that may be the right choice.
"But aren't some tools better at some things than others?"
Absolutely, and note I'm not taking shot at Lisp as a language. My argument is with the article, there is nothing here that supports his premise that Lisp is for entrepreneurs. That it was the right choice for a couple of cases? Sure! but for anyone starting a software business? nonsense.
I agree with you that all languages are tools (I love working with all kinds, actually). But aren't some tools better at some things than others? Or what would we need so many for?
I'm not saying Lisp is the nail gun and everything else is an inflatable mallet, but I do think there is a difference.
What I got out of the article is that Lisp is a tool that worked pretty darn well in a couple cases. I feel that's a good thing, because I kind of like Lisp.