Call for Interest: Clojure (or Lisp?) Code Camp with BLM focus

Neil Gilmore raito at
Thu Dec 3 15:28:26 UTC 2020

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 at

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.

More information about the pro mailing list