> many Lispers end up writing GFs named things like widget-frobnicate and sprocket-frobnicate If they do that, they're doing it wrong. Probably because they a

> many Lispers end up writing GFs named things like widget-frobnicate and sprocket-frobnicate If they do that, they're doing it wrong. Probably because they are bringing in ideas from the non-Lisp world, not realizing that these techniques are not actually good programming practice, they are strategies for dealing with deficiencies in mainstream languages. IMHO languages should be made to serve programmers. Programmers should not have to work to serve the language. So if I want to frobnicate something I want to be able to write (frobnicate the-thing) and have it Just Work. Common Lisp gives me that (when it's is used properly). No other language does. > when I program in a Lisp-1, I struggle with the semantic overhead of avoiding accidentally binding a variable that happens to be the name of a function Yes, that is why Lisp-2 is the Right Answer.