> Except what this really does is push things from being technical issues to being social issues. Sure, maybe I know Lisp. But how long is it going to take me to learn what your ultra-customized, macro-laden particular flavor of Lisp? And one has to do that for every single new project requiring coordination...
This happens in every language though. You just get to this point more efficiently with lisp.
A rigid language doesn’t protect you from having to understand the local terms e.g. ConcurrencyGeneratorObserverFactory.
Maybe the reason people prefer Java + Design Patterns to Lisp is the same reason people prefer writing monstrous macro-driven spreadsheets to writing "real" programs: lower barrier to entry.
Once people are off the ground with an MVP that is delivering value, they are willing to invest virtually unlimited effort into scaling up their pre-existing solution, even as the limitations and absurdities of their chosen framework become increasingly obvious.
Any language is preferable to a language you don't feel confident developing in. So whatever gets people off the ground is what wins, regardless of what would be better in the long run.
What does ‘low barrier to entry’ mean in this case? Java was low barrier to entry in the early days, but now it seems completely impenetrable to me having not used it for a decade.
On the other hand something like Racket seems very easy to get going with.
This happens in every language though. You just get to this point more efficiently with lisp.
A rigid language doesn’t protect you from having to understand the local terms e.g. ConcurrencyGeneratorObserverFactory.