2 ms·

> evaluate if a Lisp/Scheme implementation article is interesting I guess Clojure doesn't count as interesting and/or a lisp then, as `(2 . 3)` would not be pa

> evaluate if a Lisp/Scheme implementation article is interesting I guess Clojure doesn't count as interesting and/or a lisp then, as `(2 . 3)` would not be parsed correctly and instead throw a syntax error on that form. I still thought the article was interesting and would have loved to see a section on macros. Maybe next time.

bsder 6y ago
> I guess Clojure doesn't count as interesting and/or a lisp then The Schemers and Common Lispers have been saying this about Clojure for years, you know ... And, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't disagree with the choice that Clojure made. Not being able to process a "list" as a sequence is a PITA. However, articles like these get written with "Look how easy it is to make a Lisp" without saying "Except that we didn't implement these really hard features that actually make a Lisp"