4 ms·
An article that would title "Lisp beyond Clojure" would indeed talk about the Lisp family of languages. What is a very bad in that title is that it focuses on R
by junke 10y ago
An article that would title "Lisp beyond Clojure" would indeed talk about the Lisp family of languages. What is a very bad in that title is that it focuses on Racket, just as if the title was: "Racket - this is how Lisp looks like beyond Clojure". And that is the main problem I have with the title. The ideal title would be IMO "What could Clojure learn from Racket".
- imagist 10y agoIf you understand what the title means well enough to object to its usage, that's solid proof that the title has communicated effectively. > What is a very bad in that title is that it focuses on Racket, just as if the title was: "Racket - this is how Lisp looks like beyond Clojure". That's your own interpretation--you could easily have interpreted it as "Racket--an example of a Lisp beyond Clojure".