Steve Yegge raised an interesting point in his blog. He mentions that some time ago Eric Kidd wrote an article called Why Ruby is an Acceptable Lisp and Steves article is meant as a response to that claiming that Lisp itself may not be an acceptable Lisp at all.
Steve said in his introduction:
I guarantee you there isn't one single Lisp programmer out there who uses exclusively Lisp. Instead we spend our time hacking around its inadequacies, often in other languages.
Well I've used Lisp almost exclusively in the last 6 years. I do not think it has to be this way - I have absolutely no problem using another programming language if it fits better to the demands of my tasks. I also learned many other languages in this six years; but for most problems that came up I did use Lisp and it never was a real problem.
Steve seems a bit obsessed about "length" in all kinds of shades so I will try to give an elaborate overview of the points he raised:
Problem 1: Which Lisp
In short this section talks about how difficult it is to choose a Lisp because there are so many implementations of it. I never quite understood what the problem was with this. I'm quite happy to have a multidimensional choice out of commercial/non-commercial, bytecompiled, native, Mac, Windows, Linux, Solaris, big, small, slow, fast, embeddable, whatever implementations of Lisp. According to Steve, choosing a Lisp seems difficult too, because Paul Graham planned to create his own Lisp (Arc) and this would mean something like "don't use Lisp!". I always thought choosing a programming language should be done by analysing ones needs and what is offered from the available options.
Steve mentioned another difficulty arising, when a hypothetical newbie chooses a Common Lisp implementation:
Eventually, if they stick with Lisp at all, they learn they can override most of these defaults in nonportable ways, which makes things infinitesimally more bearable.
Well - it seems Steve himself is not yet at the point were he realizes that exactly this adaptability is what makes Lisp the language it is. For me "CL" means not only "Common Lisp", but also "Compiler Language". I know no other language which makes it so easy to adapt it to that kind of language you want and need.
Problem 2: Worthless Spec
This section argues that the Common Lisp spec (ANS X3.226-1994) is ancient. Well it's twelve years from that time - maybe thats really a long time for a language spec. He claims that everytime someone proposes to update the standard someone else does not agree to that. That's true - there are many people who think redoing the official standards process which lead to ANSI Common Lisp might be to much work for the gain. What I do not understand with Steve's concerns about this topic is, why other languages like Ruby or Python are allowed to evolve without any official standard at all and Common Lisp is only allowed to change through a labour intensive ANSI process?
Some years ago someone suggested creating a COMMON-LISP-2006 package (I've updated the year 'cause I cannot remember when the proposal was) and extending the language the way one wants within this package. This technique is used by many Lispers to adapt CL to their needs and it could also get used to adapt "Common Lisp the Language". Even better would be an approach which would be modular; allowing CL2006 implementations to implement only parts of the CL2006 package tree. But I think such an approach is not really needed. As with any current programming language: Solutions grow out of actual problems. If there is no solution for a particular problem, someone will write a solution for it if he needs it. Interoperability and reuse are programming problems too and people will write solutions.It's not a new thing for Lisp - not even for any other Programming Language - that there are people who like more to talk, argue and discuss than to simply sit down and solve their problems. Fortunately the Lisp community has quite a lot talented programmers who have contributed in a constructive and helpful way to create useful solutions for Lisp-using people.
Problem 3: CLOS
Steve claims some things which are factually not true with CLOS. I recommend any Lisper to get a copy of the book "The Art of the Metaobject Protocol" - IMHO this is an essential lecture for any programmer who wants to understand object oriented programming; not only in Lisp. For the curious: you can read what Steve got wrong with CLOS (and other things) by reading the comments to his blog entry. I don't think its necessary to duplicate what already was said.
Problem 4: Macros
Steve builds up an analogy between CL Macros and duct tape. While being entertaining to read, I don't see were this story fits with the topic of Lisp being no acceptable Lisp. The points raised are old: "hygienic" vs "not-hygienic" macros, whining about the syntax - the only new and innovative one is Steve's complete misunderstanding that CLOS is made as just a set of macros.
Problem 4: Type System
(Yes the numbering is quoted right - Steve has chosen to use this for an analogy between type systems and incorrectly numbering headings) In this section Steve promises to talk more about type systems - but not now. There is nothing more than a loose mention that the CL type system may be flexible but not enough. After his claim that Haskell and OCaml are faster because of their type systems my intention to read up his next posting about type systems dropped below zero.
I think this whole exercise in trying to write a rant about something you do not even fully comprehend is entertaining but useless.