Xah <ยทยทยท@xahlee.org> writes:
> surely, from a pure logical aspect, an old language with scars of evolution
> cannot beat a revamped version in a new name that has all the benefits of
> experience but without any baggage. or perhaps you are making the sweeping
> assertion that ALL "new" languages made mistakes somewhere such that they
> ends up worse than the (possibly) legacy ridden CL? or perhaps another
> scenario, that all language offspring are just immature enough for any of
> their theoretical superiority to beat CL in any practical context?
Just to make this clear, Lisp (the language family) is old as such
things go, but the Common Lisp of CLtL I (around 1985) was a
substantial cleanup compared the its predecessor languages,
and subsequent evolution - essentially one major revision and
no minor ones - has not created too much "baggage".