<story><title>Lisping at JPL (2002)</title><url>http://flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>maliker</author><text>I&amp;#x27;ve read this story a couple times as it&amp;#x27;s popped up on the internet in different places. I&amp;#x27;ve enjoyed it each time because it promises that lisp is an uber-powerful and easy (?) language.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m always curious though: what&amp;#x27;s the other side of the story? Why is lisp always rejected?&lt;p&gt;I started programming seriously (for money) in 2009, and when we needed a language we went with python because it had better math&amp;#x2F;science libraries than Java and much more libraries in general than clojure&amp;#x2F;lisp&amp;#x2F;ocaml. I confess I like the functional languages and like using some of their features in python.&lt;p&gt;Was the no-libraries dealbreaker for the &amp;quot;pure&amp;quot; functional languages also true in 1999, which led google to java? Or maybe there are complex meta-programming bugs you can generate in the functional languages (and elsewhere) that are the dealbreaker? Or what?</text></comment>
<story><title>Lisping at JPL (2002)</title><url>http://flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>proximitysauce</author><text>I really feel like they should teach LISP in elementary school. It has extremely simple rules to get started and helps people intuitively understand programming concepts. Maybe an updated The Little Schemer style curriculum:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.amazon.com&amp;#x2F;Little-Schemer-Daniel-P-Friedman&amp;#x2F;dp&amp;#x2F;0262560992&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.amazon.com&amp;#x2F;Little-Schemer-Daniel-P-Friedman&amp;#x2F;dp&amp;#x2F;0...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>