Not exactly. Coalton brings ML-style strong typing to Common Lisp. But Coalton code is also Lisp code.

The backend, thus, is Common Lisp, and it is available at all times, thus leveraging all its power.

All this would not happen if RMS had chosen Common Lisp to implement it...

There have been two open source Lisp Machine OS created in the last 15 or 10 years.

However a big part of the power of the Symbolics/LMI machines was in the software itself (applications), and this is still propietary code.

To reimplement the Lisp Machine applications would take quite a big effort.

This project is nice, however if we don't have a specific, client-side IDE for interactive development, 70% of the power of Smalltalk is gone (one of the criticisms I give to Ruby)

How would one do to push changes to the web frontend (browser) without stopping the program ?

Then it becomes a concrete Lisp implementation and thus not unpredictable anymore.

Good luck with that.

Lisp's killer feature is procedural macros that are extremely easy to write and debug.

Lua doesn't have such a thing, that's why Fennel was created.

Erlang also doesn't have such a thing, that's why LFE was created.

based

One day, one remote day, mankind will attain Reason and will award you a Nobel Prize for speaking out loud against retrograde computing.

I salute you, hero, veteran.

Yes, i have many examples. Two of them I personally fired. One of them, I should have fired much early. I let this engineer basically add negative value by trying to make his peers (other engineers) finish the work it was delegated to him, thus creating negative value by preventing the other, highly productive engineers, to do their tasks.

I warned him not to do this, but he didn't heed. Sadly due to Human Resources the firing process took way too long. I should've acted earlier.

Exactly.

I think i'll never click on an IEEE Spectrum article again.

IEEE has jumped the shark.

Which is completely wrong.

Indeed this is one of the hard problems for a manager.

In the 1980s, complete workstations were written in Lisp down to the lowest level code. With garbage collection of course. Operating system written in Lisp, application software written in Lisp, etc.

Symbolics Lisp Machine

https://www.chai.uni-hamburg.de/~moeller/symbolics-info/fami...

LMI Lambda http://images.computerhistory.org/revonline/images/500004885...

We're talking about commercial, production-quality, expensive machines. These machines had important software like 3D design software, CAD/CAM software, etc. And very, very advanced OS. You could inspect (step into) a function, then into the standard library, and then you could keep stepping into and into until you ended up looking at the operating system code.

The OS code, being dynamically linked, could be changed at runtime.

You mean, something that Lisp does since the early 1980s?

But this is because JSON is an untyped data structure. (And btw, a flawed one...)

You would have this problem in any programming language.