"The fact that Gabriel hasn't "programmed professionally" in those languages does not imply that he doesn't know them."
Fair enough but it doesn't mean that he does either, at least to a high enough degree where he can make an unbiased comparison to CL.
And his writing on this essay (which in my opinion is a rather incoherent and wandering paean of praise for lisp vs a strawman Java) seems to indicate he doesn't.
Richard P. Gabriel lost his Lisp business when he invested in creating a new C++ development environment and used his existing Lisp business to get some money for that.
He spend a lot of time & money into getting this C++ thing going - not as a programmer, but as a boss of a software company.
That's also why Lucid Emacs got forked - which then became XEmacs.
Comments
"The fact that Gabriel hasn't "programmed professionally" in those languages does not imply that he doesn't know them."
Fair enough but it doesn't mean that he does either, at least to a high enough degree where he can make an unbiased comparison to CL.
And his writing on this essay (which in my opinion is a rather incoherent and wandering paean of praise for lisp vs a strawman Java) seems to indicate he doesn't.
Richard P. Gabriel lost his Lisp business when he invested in creating a new C++ development environment and used his existing Lisp business to get some money for that.
He spend a lot of time & money into getting this C++ thing going - not as a programmer, but as a boss of a software company.
That's also why Lucid Emacs got forked - which then became XEmacs.