Re: Practical Common Lisp reviewed on /.

Peter Wright wrote:
> On 29/04 11:41:02, Peter Seibel wrote:
> > Paolo Amoroso <amoroso@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > Peter Seibel <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >> The Lithp jokes have (predictably) started already as have the
> > >> (equally predictable) responses of "Practical Common Lisp is an
> > >> oxymoron". Anyway, might be a good time for folks who want to
> > >> defend Lisp's honor to head over to /.
> [ snip ]
> > > P.S.
> > > Lame translation: don't bother with them, move along.
> >
> > Probably good advice. On the other hand, it turns out /. still has
> > some clout--PCL's Amazon Sales Rank, which was at 2,771 just before
> > the review appeared, is back in the three-digit range, and within
> > 40 or so of it's best ever, presumably thanks to appearing on /.
>
> Whatever else you can say about slashdot (and there's certainly a lot
> of negative things you can say, some of them even true), there are a
> _lot_ of geekpeople (or semi- or proto-geek people) that read it. And
> some of them even have money and like to buy interesting books. :)

They seemed overall smart to me. There were some arrogant blowhards
(like in any forum), but many were honestly curious and properly
skeptical.

That is, they rejected overly ideological reasons why Lisp is of use to
them, but accepted reasonable ones.

.