2 ms·
> There are endless lisp purity quagmires to get bogged down in and it completely avoids every single one of them Which is odd, because purity has never been a
by User23 4y ago
> There are endless lisp purity quagmires to get bogged down in and it completely avoids every single one of them
Which is odd, because purity has never been a defining characteristic of the Lisp family of languages. It's somewhat analogous to the disputes over what is and isn't a rogue-like game. It's more a matter of spirit than any particular feature. Although there are features that the overwhelming majority of Lisps have, like a syntax that is pretty much directly is a tree representation of the AST (modulo reader macros if available). Of course the very first Lisp is an exception thanks to M-expressions!
- shakna 4y agoI wouldn't say it's that odd - Purity is one of the largest defining differences between Scheme and Common Lisp. To the point where the Lisp family of languages can be defined by whether it takes after one or the other by its level of purity.
- User23 4y agoI didn’t mean purity in the functional programming sense. Rather, I was using the general English sense of strictly adhering to some ideal. I claim that there is no such thing as the Lispiest Lisp.