> I also have no real desire to dive into strongly typed functional languages -
That's a big shame. But don't knock it until you've tried it.
> And all of those modern functional languages are as fringe (or even more fringe) than Lisp is.
I'm not convinced Lisp is more popular anymore. I've spent the last 10 years being a full time Haskell and OCaml programmer. The killer application is compilers and associated tooling. Almost no one is choosing Lisp for this today. And why would they?
> but let's be honest: programming languages that appeal to mainstream developers
Where do you think the newer mainstream languages are getting e.g. algebraic datatypes and pattern matching from?
That's interesting. Have you written anything further about ML vs lisp for tooling, or could point to a reference? Compiler dev here, C++ when paid and lisp when not. Interested in SML but haven't spent the time to assess what I'm missing.
Exhaustive pattern matching over AST nodes is a good trick. That might interact better with the type constructors than ad hoc representation in clos. It seems possible I should stop putting everything in a map.
Is the edge over lisp in the compile time rejection of incorrect programs or elsewhere?
That's a big shame. But don't knock it until you've tried it.
> And all of those modern functional languages are as fringe (or even more fringe) than Lisp is.
I'm not convinced Lisp is more popular anymore. I've spent the last 10 years being a full time Haskell and OCaml programmer. The killer application is compilers and associated tooling. Almost no one is choosing Lisp for this today. And why would they?
> but let's be honest: programming languages that appeal to mainstream developers
Where do you think the newer mainstream languages are getting e.g. algebraic datatypes and pattern matching from?