The Lisp Paradox

Inferior tools allow less intelligent people to create what those with greater intelligence are unable to create with Lisp.

What does this paradox mean?

Are people who choose to use Lisp actually less intelligent than people who use other languages? Is Lisp actually inferior to and less productive than these other languages? Do the few people who are able to accomplish something in Lisp actually choose it for bragging rights, the way handicaps are used in sports?

Why do people put assembly language and Lisp in the same category of difficult languages? Shouldn't the high productivity of Lisp make it one of the easy languages, like Visual Basic, Python, PHP, and JavaScript? Why is it considered a difficult accomplishment to create something useful in Lisp?

>>44
I wasn't talking about desktop software, I was talking about GUI toolkits. In reality, can you take any arbitrary piece of software and tell what language it was written in? Even if you could, you can't cherry-pick a few pieces of desktop software that weren't written in CL, because that is not how you prove the non-existence of things.
From this, your original postulation that "there is no good desktop software written in Lisp" is not valid. Thus your entire line of reasoning so far is flawed, and as there is no sound and rational response to an argument that is not logically consistent, I'm not surprised you've had the non-productive discussion you have had ITT so far.

They have overcome it, Lisp have not

An earlier draft of >>43 also had mention of a critical mass that is required for widespread adoption. There may well be desktop/GUI CL software, but unlike JS and Python, nobody popular has dedicated any blog posts to the fact (I assume because they are busy making money instead of blogging about whatever hip framework came out last week).