> Clojure people don't know anything else, and say things like [I'm paraphrasing typical rhetoric]: "Lisp provides a functional paradigm based on operations on

> Clojure people don't know anything else, and say things like [I'm paraphrasing typical rhetoric]: "Lisp provides a functional paradigm based on operations on immutable sequences represented by persistant data structures". Wow, you've gotten really specific with your straw man argument here. I'm sure you can find some wacko out there who specifically is saying that's what a Lisp is, but that's certainly not what I'm saying a Lisp is. The Clojure front page says: "Clojure is a dialect of Lisp, and shares with Lisp the code-as-data philosophy and a powerful macro system." Maybe try responding to a more mainstream opinion like that instead of your straw man. > Clojurians use the word "Lisp" because the Clojure website and documentation tells them to. If the Clojure website and documentation spelled it out that Clojure takes some ideas from Lisp, but isn't Lisp, then they wouldn't do that. Wow, life must be really hard if you're triggered this easily. Alternative hypothesis: Clojure docs refer to Clojure as a Lisp because it is obviously a Lisp, not because they're picking on poor persecuted Lispers. You're not a martyr. Nobody in the Clojure community cares about your feelings enough to try to hurt them. In fact, for the most part, the Clojure community doesn't know you exist. If you can find a spot where Clojure website or docs orders Clojurians to refer to Clojure as a Lisp, I'll be pretty surprised. My guess is, all it does is refer to Clojure as a Lisp. It's not about you, so maybe try and cope by not taking it personally. > The author of Clojure despises classic Lisp and Lisp hackers, so he perpetrated that on purpose, and gleefully enjoyed it when some Lisp programmers become indignant about it. I very much doubt Rich Hickey "despises classic Lisp and Lisp hackers", given he wrote a language which you have to admit is at least heavily based on Lisp. I won't speak for whether Rich Hickey feels glee because I don't make shit up like you are, but I feel glee when pedants get triggered, and I think that is pretty justified. :) To be clear, I don't hate Common Lisp programmers--I like Common Lisp and most of the people who write it. Rich Hickey did say that a lot of Lisp communities are really toxic and he wanted to distance the Clojure community from that and... yeah, you're being a great example of his point. > We see situations like people not wanting to try a classic Lisp because they think it's a functional language for manipulating immutable data structures due to either their exposure to Clojure or to Clojure-related advocacy. Maybe people don't want to try a classic Lisp because they start exploring the possibility and all the communities are polluted with gatekeeping pedants. And let's be explicit: is Scheme a Lisp? I know you're just parrotting Naggum's arguments against Scheme, so let's be clear: this isn't about Clojure, this is part of a gatekeeping culture that started before Clojure existed.