Hardly "pedantic" to point out imprecise language in a post about parsing source code. It's hilariously wrong when you consider the author's focus on Clojure, w

Hardly "pedantic" to point out imprecise language in a post about parsing source code. It's hilariously wrong when you consider the author's focus on Clojure, which introduces all sorts of wonky syntax. Indeed the article begs for potshots from smug lisp weenies: 1) It's clearly talking about Clojure, yet leads with "Let's simplify the way we write Lisp". Them's fighting words in the Lisp corral. 2) Paredit clone, but only acknowledges that for animations. 3) No emacs version! (Understandable given #2 however)