Hey, you're both [edit: mistake, see below] new here and obviously knowledgable about the topic at hand. At HN, we try to maintain civility - it's an explicit goal of the community. What this implies is that if you're in a discussion with someone, and you realize they don't understand an important point of the discussion, instead of using sarcasm, it's much better to say "Oh, I see, you're missing point x."
Sorry, I said "both" by mistake. You are an active and well-known contributor to HN, and I know you're reasonable, which is part of why I felt soc88 was being unreasonable.
Ahh, the famous behavior of Lisp fanatics. Tragic, how it is obvious to everyone – except themselves – why no one wants to use their language.
> No, CL is not statically typed. And your point would be...?
Uh ... what about
a) Author complains about the inability of the compiler to prove some property of his code.
b) Untyped languages – by definition – don't provide any substantial proving abilities based on types.
c) Therefore, you are completely missing the point.