How Lisp is Going to Save the World

That is true to a degree but you really can not generalize very well at all in java. You will also be hard pressed to find java code written functionally enough that you can just run a unit test and know it is working correctly. Usually you have to instantiate many other classes and stub in test data via something like guice. There are many places for those bugs to hide in that type of setup.

Lisp is very under documented compared to other languages. This makes learning LISP extremely difficult.

Let's take a look at HyperSpec, I follow your link and I'm greeted with a mostly blank (and very ugly) page. Ok there is something called starting points, I guess I'll start there. That page just lists all the indexes. Ok let's try chapters, that sounds like a place to start. Oh yay, another page with nothing but links. Ok, let's try introduction. Again, just a mostly empty page with links. Most people would have given up by now. But lets keep going. Let's try 1.1, which takes us to ANOTHER page of links. I'm feel like I'm getting the run around here. Lets click 1.1.1 and see what happens. Finally I get a page that isn't all links, and it's a single paragraph. What a waste of time.

Let's try another language, how about JavaScript? Google gives me this link: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript Some helpful information on the first page! Do I want a reference? Do I want a guide? Do I want a re-introduction? Maybe some sites with courses on JavaScript! Wow, that's really useful. Lets just start with the guide because it's "Our primary guide about how to program with JavaScript" and that sounds about right. It takes me to a list of links, Yuck, let's try the fist one called "JavaScript Guide" (Isn't that what I clicked on to get here?). Yup, that link just refreshes the page. That sucks, let's try the second link "About this Guide". A page that describes what I should already know, how to find my way around the guide, and tips for diving into JavaScript.

This is the problem with LISP documentation. At best, if I know exactly what I am looking for I find a giant index. At worst I have no idea what I'm looking for and I get snooty comments from LISPers.

The point is you shouldn't make people look really hard to find information. Good documentation should be easy to find and navigate.

And where do I find this "simple naming convention"? I tried google and found repos to the project, but nothing that told me how to read the C documentation and translate it into LISP.

May I propose the alternative explanation that you are overstating the case for Lisp and this software, because you just happen to like Lisp? I mean, look at your HN alias.

That particular software could have been written in any bloody language. Logistics is one of the more boring areas of software engineering anyway -- and the majority of it in the world runs in Cobol, Java and similar boring languages, just like most of the banking world runs.

Plus, it's not like the US army haven't made a mess with war logistics. How much did the Iraq war cost to the country again?

The hyperspec is standard document, not an introduction. It's an invaluable reference you use after you get familiar with the language. I also have emacs set up so that I can look up symbols from within my source, and have the relevant page open up in a w3m window in emacs. I use it constantly and miss the same level of quality and clarity in other language documentation, but you need to get used to it's style and format. If you want to get started with lisp, you go to http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ and http://www.cliki.net/

Learning lisp wasn't any more difficult for me than learning any other language. "Practical common lisp" is well written. "Object oriented programming in common lisp" is a well written book as well, "Land of lisp" was fun, and not too bad either.

The core language is extremely well documented and understood. As for the libraries, some of them are well documented, some of them aren't. After the docs for RESTAS started going slightly out of date, I just opened the source and read it all in an afternoon(~600loc), and mostly understood it. I prefer not to have to do that, but claiming it makes it extremely difficult to learn, I don't know, to me it's just an inconvenience, and I have a much better understanding of the framework now, which I couldn't get from just reading docs. And some libraries are so small, I can just figure them all by inspecting the package in slime, and reading the docstrings. Usually there is at least example code. The situation isn't perfect, but it is more than possible to use lisp libraries with great success. Most authors are also pretty approachable on irc or the mailing lists. In other words, I'm a young amateur programmer, who picked common lisp less than two years ago, I'm barely competent as a programmer, and I could figure this all out, why can't expert programmers with years of hacking behind them do the same, I can't understand.

PS as for the ugliness of the hyperspec, I'm happy if it scares away people who get impressed by "modern" design, more than substance and content. I usually read it in text only browsers, and curse docs I can't read well from within emacs. Alt-tabbing to a browser and having to use the mouse while hacking ruins my day :)