Not to start an argument, but to vet a concen

Assertion: The disfavorable reputation that seems to have been — in yay-much of conventional discourse — attached to Common Lisp, it is not deserved by Common Lisp. It is not pragmatically deserved. It is not technically deserved.

Neither is it deserved by persons whom endeavor to program systems by applying the Common Lisp language about matters, nor is it likely to be of benefit to persons whom may so endeavor.

Why I would 'blog this: It may be a stretch, but it appears to be fit as a statement for a 'blog entry, and as a grounds for addressing some concern.

Not usually would I want to address the concern with such a heavy-handed tone, as to the discourse, but the first line in this 'blog entry represents what one might term as it being a "lead-in" statement, before some discourse, as to present exposition on the matter. That particular statement of assertion, there, in such wording, it serves to occasion a heavy-handed tone in the rest of this editorial.

This is entered with a tone that may lend an appearance as if I was greatly bothered at the matter. Furthermore, the tone may appear rather 'heavy-handed'. Neither of those would appear, to me, as being natural about how I most generally regard the matter.

Maybe this is best left at the above. Maybe some more exposition would be suitable.

I consider: Of what appears as it being obvious, there might be borne no discussion, in evident grounds.

I consider: It is obvious -- and it is, to my own person -- that Common Lisp is a programming language wholly viable for any task in which a programming language would be applied. I consider that it would be a dissservice, and may be like a waste of time, to argue the point, in any contention -- beside that it would be an abject argument, here, made on nothing but the initial concern, a concern as that it might be regarded as if it was otherwise.

A person may apply a programming language that one would be familiar with.

Then, after the plain facts of it, then, people would start the politicking.

Politics and design and implementation of technology do not fit. Politics and science do not fit.

People and politics, it appears, do tend to get fit together. Such might be an affect after constitution of society: Someone gets bugged at a matter, then begins addressing concern apart from, but coincident to, the original matter; others join in, about the contention; "the political movement is begun" — however much there would or would-not be recalled, the grounds of it.

I realize that this discourse is not very pragmatic, and may appear rather 'preachy'. On grounds of "tonal consistency", I find that I cannot avoid such a tone of this, given the tone of the initial entry to this.

Neither does this resemble a discussion -- more like a set of assertions, put along a continuous rail. I'm sure there may be room for discussion about this; all I can come up with, at this point: Assertions.

If there is a defensive tone, apparent of this, I am not surprised.

One might consider, How much a political stylization about a technology may, would and does serve to affect whether that technology will be accepted, by people. (I assert: "Microsoft, and some friends to Microsoft", they consider this, and they proceed about it -- to the favor of no-one, though they might think as if it was a favor to them and to their investors -- proceeding on the consideration, to the effect -- here, and most immediately -- an effect of a spin against Linux. One might take, as an example, some efforts made at marketing, and what more of discourse.)

One might consider: How such effort in politicization of technology (as a tactic of some actually, inherently disreputable sales) stands to affect consultants and employees of and investors to whole agencies, endeavoring about the matter raised to political concern.

"Then, it's personal".

and I ain't about to brawl on this.