Lisp - exotic taxis

Once, when I was still at university, I had to write small learning tasks in the Lisp language. This language is quite interesting, and it differs practically from everything that developers use in their work today ... well, I passed the workshop and, as they say, forgot.
... but yesterday, after seeing the post of habrahabr.ru/blogs/lisp/89097, I allowed myself to indicate to the author that, in my opinion, the problem of Lisp is not in the absence of libraries, and the lack of libraries follows from the problems of Lisp itself, a very bad readability of the software code that makes it very difficult to develop large programs.

Not one of the people who loves to pokolivorit, but the explosive debate made me very happy =), so I decided to quote specialists on this exotic and big programming gurus.

Well, with my own comments, of course.
')
PS
Nothing personal, just ridiculous.

In Lisp, the main focus is on OOP (CLOS is the most powerful object system), on building abstractions at various levels, on a powerful basic language.

In my free translation - "They made a taxi, it turned out the plane"

HTML and Java are very easy to compare. More precisely, you can compare XML and Java. In XML, the encoded logic of the Java Ant program that it interprets is encoded.

Not only logic is encoded, but also the soul, patriotism and morality of the Java program!

On the contrary, using Lisp allows you to overcome this unreal complexity that traditional approaches cannot do (the same OOP *).

Everyone urgently get out of recursion! Can not cope with the complexity!

You might be surprised, but the most common SDK in the world is Emacs

And I thought Borland Delphi ... =)

The possibility of Lisp, which allows you to deal with the complexity of large systems (against which, as practice has already shown, the OOP approach is powerless), is the ability to create multilayered weakly coupled systems due to problem-oriented programming (primarily based on macros) ...

So they didn’t explain to me what are loosely coupled systems.

... and not tied to the need to fence the hierarchy of polymorphism classes .

No comment

In a nutshell, what I wanted to say: if you do not create hierarchies, then there will be no polymorphism in OOP.

How do you order comrade captain!

Loosely coupled systems are not science fiction. Unix is ​​built upon this principle (to some extent).

Just still do not know who they are ...

polymorphism in OO languages ​​(read C ++, Java) does not exist separately from inheritance ...
... If an OO language refuses the concept of inheritance, then it also loses polymorphism.

First, first, I lose your polymorphism !!!

In short, whatever one may say, and all your polymorphism is created by creating more and more new classes.

In OOP, everything is created by creating new classes =)