Well, I've worked on and written lisp code for many disparate applications. The real problem is if you get lisp in the hands of an egg juggler, they will still want to juggle eggs. Lisp isn't really made for that, so it ends up 'buggy and inefficient'. They will wonder why they bothered, 'this isn't any easier than C or C++', they will say. If you get someone who is a guru to create the high level abstractions, it is likely they will get bored 'this doesn't feel like programming', they will say.

The solution is to use python. It looks enough like C that the idiots can write boilerplate, it functions enough like lisp that you can use function composition to make clean abstractions and not write boilerplate yourself.

Isn't what he is suggesting just modularity in programming?

When he involves the magic of Lisp macros he goes beyond anything any other language family can do.

I tend to agree, or at least I prefer the (optional) modularity I can achieve in Lisps to any other language family.

Yes good modularity is the essence of what I was calling good design.

The point was that Lisp has better tools for achieving good modularity.

Stupid title. Okay article. Lisp is great, etc etc.

Ruby is for stubborn people :D

Python is for verbose people. :D

You misspelled Java.