In every case I've been involved in, 'not fit for purpose' was a dog whistle for 'I don't know or understand it, and/or I'm too stupid to learn anything new'.
Neil Gilmore raito@raito.com
On 2020-12-03 02:01, Pascal Costanza wrote:
In my opinion, prototyping in Common Lisp, and then translating to a different programming language for creating the final product, is a perfectly valid professional use of Common Lisp. It’s useful to know which programming languages may be good targets for such an approach.
This is, of course, not ideal, because this can easily be misunderstood as a statement that Common Lisp is not fit for purpose. However, I don’t see it that way, and you cannot control people’s perceptions.
In our particular case, our manager is on board with this approach, and this allows us to pay for regular licenses for LispWorks. The approach works really well for us.