3 ms·
That's the fastest I've ever seen an author of such a Common Lisp rant point out that you're not supposed to take it too seriously. (By "such a rant", I mean t
by calibraxis 16y ago
That's the fastest I've ever seen an author of such a Common Lisp rant point out that you're not supposed to take it too seriously.
(By "such a rant", I mean the tradition of rants which purport to turn Common Lisp's negatives into positives, where the smugness is joyously dialled up to 11.)
- pwpwp 16y agoIt's not a CL rant.
- calibraxis 16y agoI've read your blog, so I'm aware that you don't consider it such, just as the creator of Clojure might take issue with your claim that "Clojure ignores Lisp." But it shares many family resemblances with the Common Lisp rant. For instance: * It typically subsumes Scheme, Interlisp, etc into "Lisp". (Regardless of whether, in other contexts, the author argues they're not Lisps.) * Others are dismissed as "unwashed masses", while the "so many smart people" in the Lisp community obviously thought of your new innovation and either dismissed it or had other things to do than implement it. * It purports to turn a commonly-believed negative into a positive. * Uses questionable but nuanced logic. * The author seems to at least partially believe in the rant's gist, as far as anyone can tell. I'm not necessarily arguing it's a bad thing, just a tradition that people might want to keep in mind with a dose of humor.
- nkassis 16y agoThat's because only CL can go to 11 all the other Lisp can only go to 10. Unless you defmacro 10 to be 11 EDIT: I guess I have terrible humor ;p Moving it to reddit