vincenttoups

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by vincenttoups 14y ago

   My point was exactly that the allowed usage you propose, where Emacs Lisp is a Lisp and Clojure, for instance, is not, is quite ridiculous. The disallowed usage, "Which Lisp should I use, Clojure or Common Lisp?" is however, not ridiculous
2. 2.▲
   by vincenttoups 14y ago

   But the question "Which Lisp" is entirely meaningful, more so than even the question, more acceptable by your definitions, "Should I program in in Emacs or Common Lisp?" The programmer asking "Which Lisp?" might very well find that Racket
3. 3.▲
   by vincenttoups 14y ago

   I find this to be unnecessarily prescriptive, as are almost all purely semantic assertions about what should be (semantic used in its weak, normal language sense here). It is certainly true that Schemes and Clojures and Adders and Emacs Li