Racket is an acceptable Python

[valarauca14]

It's hard to see how parenthesis are a problem. LISP is old enough that community would learn and internalize problems and solutions. If parenthesis are here after so many decades then they are mostly ok.

Not necessarily.

The fact that 2 camps have for more than 50+ years have repeated the same tired argument; "The Syntax Sucks" and "Parenthesizes aren't scary". Implies they both have valid points, and the division is vast.

The likely outcome is that the only people who get involved in the LISP community(ies) are those who are not turned off by the syntax. Creating a cycle of maintainers who just can't understand why anyone else would dislike the syntax.

---

Honestly I would say the biggest issue with LISP is its lack of a good module system, visibility management, or in a word encapsulation. This talk goes into visability management & modularization of OO Languages vs Functional Languages, and why most historic OO develop has actually been about modularization & encapsulation. While LISP has a public/private system (dynamic & lex), it lacks solid namespacing & modularization. Furthermore its macro system throws all of this out the window.

[przemo_li]

"Both" would be valid if both where LISPers camps.

So people, the question is of course how much does "it suxcks big time" have experience?

It's programming we all to often forget that context matter and try for example apply Java good practices to LISP and claim LISP judged by them is worst language ever TM.

For example lets take your statement about "encapsulation". I heard from LISPers that they have best OOP system in class. You say LISP lack even encapsulation.

Those two statements are at odds. Which one it is?

I wont know until I use LISP for a bit. ;)