Go easy on the sarcasm and ridicule; it doesn't help you make your case.
PG built Viaweb in Lisp because there was no Ruby, Python or Perl back then. When there are no libraries to chose from, you pick a language that lets you write libraries quickly. Today we boldly go where many have gone before, and that means that we can benefit from technologies others have built. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that.
I'm arguing that if you want to run a business you should be pragmatic about the language you pick.
The second half of your post seems to consist of mere hyperbole and strawmen (COBOL? Right). If there is excellent rationale for picking an esoteric language, I'd love to hear it.
"PG built Viaweb in Lisp because there was no Ruby, Python or Perl back then."
First, you were the one suggesting we don't use Ruby or Python, in 2009 in the name of "stability". and now you are saying PG would have used these "unstable" languages in 1995 "if they existed" which brings me to
"because there was no Ruby, Python or Perl back then."
You are wrong.
ViaWeb was started in 1995
Perl was available (and being used to build websites) in 1995. Python was available too. Do your research before making ridiculous claims!
As PG says in one of his essays (link below)
"During the years we worked on Viaweb I read a lot of job descriptions. A new competitor seemed to emerge out of the woodwork every month or so. The first thing I would do, after checking to see if they had a live online demo, was look at their job listings. After a couple years of this I could tell which companies to worry about and which not to. The more of an IT flavor the job descriptions had, the less dangerous the company was. The safest kind were the ones that wanted Oracle experience. You never had to worry about those. You were also safe if they said they wanted C++ or Java developers. If they wanted Perl or Python programmers, that would be a bit frightening-- that's starting to sound like a company where the technical side, at least, is run by real hackers."
;-)
You go on to say,
"If there is excellent rationale for picking an esoteric language, I'd love to hear it."
"In fact, choosing a more powerful language probably decreases the size of the team you need, because (a) if you use a more powerful language you probably won't need as many hackers, and (b) hackers who work in more advanced languages are likely to be smarter."
He (and others) have written a lot about this. Again, do your research. You may or may not agree with the rationale he puts forward, but you undermine your own argument when you make up things to strengthen it (like perl not existing in 1995).
As a test app for his programming language, of course. Not because it's the best tool for the job. He essentially built an entire language for this website -- that won't give you a highscore in the productivity hall of fame :)
And yet, even with Python and Ruby well established, he still felt the desire to build his own language. And the language he chose to build was Lisp-like rathar than Python- or Ruby-like.
PG built Viaweb in Lisp because there was no Ruby, Python or Perl back then. When there are no libraries to chose from, you pick a language that lets you write libraries quickly. Today we boldly go where many have gone before, and that means that we can benefit from technologies others have built. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that.
I'm arguing that if you want to run a business you should be pragmatic about the language you pick.
The second half of your post seems to consist of mere hyperbole and strawmen (COBOL? Right). If there is excellent rationale for picking an esoteric language, I'd love to hear it.