>>I believe you'd find that if you'd know Lisp like you do Perl you'd be at least as productive as you're in Perl.
No,
And this is probably the reason why Lisp never took off post the appearance of C based languages. This is also why there are so many languages, because there are that many use cases for them. Denying the existence of a problem doesn't offer a solution. I can build anything quickly merely by using CPAN modules, I can manipulate strings and do all the text magic real quickly in Perl. That's not the same case with Lisp.
What you are saying is something like this. One guy wants reach from point A to B. He can either run or go in a car. You can argue that if he practices enough he can run as fast as the car, sure he can. But there is 0 logic in subjecting your legs to that kind of a torture, while all you need to learn is how to drive a car.
Now don't tell me that going from point A to B itself is wrong and he should be going to C instead.
No,
And this is probably the reason why Lisp never took off post the appearance of C based languages. This is also why there are so many languages, because there are that many use cases for them. Denying the existence of a problem doesn't offer a solution. I can build anything quickly merely by using CPAN modules, I can manipulate strings and do all the text magic real quickly in Perl. That's not the same case with Lisp.
What you are saying is something like this. One guy wants reach from point A to B. He can either run or go in a car. You can argue that if he practices enough he can run as fast as the car, sure he can. But there is 0 logic in subjecting your legs to that kind of a torture, while all you need to learn is how to drive a car.
Now don't tell me that going from point A to B itself is wrong and he should be going to C instead.