4 ms·
And there's a big group of academics, nearly all of them, that refer to lisp as a family of languages with many dialects.
by hellofunk 10y ago
And there's a big group of academics, nearly all of them, that refer to lisp as a family of languages with many dialects.
- iak8god 10y ago> And there's a big group of academics, nearly all of them, that refer to lisp as a family of languages with many dialects. Certainly Doug Hoyte, the author of this phenomenal ~400 page book on Common Lisp programming, is aware of that.
- hellofunk 10y agoWell, opinions may vary, but I own this book and the word phenomenal is not appropriate. Most CL hackers I know do not take this book too seriously. It is loaded with pretense and self-congratulatory comments.
- iak8god 10y agoYes, opinions vary. I found LOL very instructive, but maybe I was in just the right place when I discovered it. In any case, what I was responding to in your earlier comment was the implication (I thought) that Hoyte doesn't understand "lisp as a family of languages with many dialects." But since you've read LOL, that cannot have been your point...
- hellofunk 10y agoMy point was more to the readers of HN who wouldn't know, and the title just says "Lisp is not functional" so I was providing some context.
- iak8god 10y agoThanks for clarifying. I can see how it would be confusing for someone to be dropped into chapter 5 of the book with a section title like that. Common Lisp hackers may use "Lisp" colloquially as a shorthand for the language they're working with ("Common Lisp" is a bit of a mouthful, after all), but I don't think many of them are confused about the existence and nature of other lisps, or that they tend to disagree with academics on this.