> The only consistent explanation I've seen that it is about 'easy'. The other languages have tools to make them easy, easy IDE's, the languages 'solve' one 'thing' and using them for that 'one thing' is easier to than building your own in LISP.
I have thought something similar, perhaps with a bit more emphasis on network effects and initial luck of popularity, but the same idea. Then about a week ago, I was one of the lucky 10,000[0] that learned about The Lisp Curse[1]. It's as old as the hills, but I hadn't come across anything like it before. I think it better explains the reason "the best languages don't get adopted" than the above.
The TL;DR is with unconstrained coding power comes dispersion. This dilutes solutions across equally optimal candidates instead of consolidation on a single (arbitrary) optimal solution.
I'd say you were unlucky, because it's a rather terrible essay and doesn't actually get the diagnosis correct at all; indeed if some of its claims were true, you'd think they would apply just as well to other more popular languages, or rule out existing Lisp systems comprised of millions of lines of code with large teams. The author never even participated in Lisp, and is ignorant of most of Lisp history. I wish it'd stop being circulated.
I have thought something similar, perhaps with a bit more emphasis on network effects and initial luck of popularity, but the same idea. Then about a week ago, I was one of the lucky 10,000[0] that learned about The Lisp Curse[1]. It's as old as the hills, but I hadn't come across anything like it before. I think it better explains the reason "the best languages don't get adopted" than the above.
The TL;DR is with unconstrained coding power comes dispersion. This dilutes solutions across equally optimal candidates instead of consolidation on a single (arbitrary) optimal solution.
[0] https://xkcd.com/1053/
[1] http://winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html