2 ms·
> I wish the Common Lisp camp wasn't so insistent on equating "Lisp" to "Common Lisp." But that's what Common Lisp is: it's the common Lisp-like language which
by zeveb 11y ago
> I wish the Common Lisp camp wasn't so insistent on equating "Lisp" to "Common Lisp."
But that's what Common Lisp is: it's the common Lisp-like language which (should have) united all the disparate dialects of Lisp.
> It's annoying having to tiptoe around them by saying "Lisp-like language."
What's annoying to me is that people keep on sinking time an effort into new Lisp-like languages instead of just using Common Lisp (or, gasp, working on a next-generation CL).
There's a lot of hard-earned wisdom in CL; even the majority of the cruft exists for good reasons.
- armitron 11y agoThink of it as an early warning system. You immediately know who the idiots are, so you don't need to waste any time finding that out for yourself. I put Clojure in the same category, if we examine it outside the Java ecosystem, a language that is the definition of "premature optimization" (all the concurrency and immutable datastructure features are available as libraries in CL) and has no business existing in a universe where CL exists. But of course people want to work with Java and so on and so forth. Tight Java interop is what makes Clojure worthy of existence and of course, why would any sane Lisper want to work in the Java ecosystem?