In the context of LATEX, some Pythonista asked what the big \nsuccesses of Lisp were. I think there were at least three *big* \nsuccesses.\n\n a. orbitz.com web site uses Lisp for algorithms, etc.\n b. Yahoo store was originally written in Lisp.\n c. Emacs\n\nThe issues with these will probably come up, so I might as well\nmention them myself (which will also make this a more balanced\npost)\n\na. AFAIK Orbitz frequently has to be shut down for maintenance\n(read "full garbage collection" - I'm just guessing: with\ngenerational garbage collection, you still have to do full\ngarbage collection once in a while, and on a system like that\nit can take a while)\n\nb. AFAIK, Yahoo Store was eventually rewritten in a non-Lisp. \nWhy? I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you :)\n\nc. Emacs has a reputation for being slow and bloated. But then\nit's not written in Common Lisp.\n\nAre ViaWeb and Orbitz bigger successes than LATEX? Do they \nhave more users? It depends. Does viewing a PDF file made\nwith LATEX make you a user of LATEX? Does visiting Yahoo\nstore make you a user of ViaWeb? \n\nFor the sake of being balanced: there were also some *big*\nfailures, such as Lisp Machines. They failed because\nthey could not compete with UNIX (SUN, SGI) in a time when \nperformance, multi-userism and uptime were of prime importance. \n(Older LispM's just leaked memory until they were shut down,\nnewer versions overcame that problem but others remained)\n\nAnother big failure that is often _attributed_ to Lisp is AI,\nof course. But I don't think one should blame a language\nfor AI not happening. Marvin Mins ky, for example, \nblames Robotics and Neural Networks for that.