Going to push back on this. Lisp is written to be "flexed". And people can and should write it however they want. I think treating students like they're all

Going to push back on this. Lisp is written to be "flexed". And people can and should write it however they want. I think treating students like they're all incapable of googling is utterly infantilizing and nothing about it serves any purpose other than stroking the authors ego. The vast, and I mean seriously vast, majority of programming books waste pages and often multiple whole chapters on treating the user like they can't find the documentation, like they can't reason about different syntactical constructions, and it leaves the learner hobbled and weakened when going out into the real world and trying to read, let alone write, actually code to accomplish a real task. People can cry about Paul Grahams style in ANSI lisp, or Let over Lambda, anyone who can work through either of those books is going to be fine reading Practical Common Lisp (or whatever). Also, finally, Common Lisp isn't exactly known for being a "team language" and the overwhelming majority of projects that I know of were originated by one person. I for one hope the author contributes his work in whatever way will he feels like. Lisp is a liberating language to use, we should write about it in the same way