@phoe @orbifx “But this is lisp. We're very non-functional and very proud of it.” that’s awful. Author writes about COMMON LISP, not the lisp. CL is multi-paradigm; that’s not true for lisps out there (or lambda calculus).

(A red flag in the chapter is discussing something without stating its definition. First answer ‘What is lisp and what is not lisp.’ before claiming something about lisp.)

@mastoabed @orbifx Let Over Lambda is a book about Common Lisp, which is often shortened to just Lisp.

@phoe @orbifx the point is the shorthand is confusing, not helpful, and not correct. And statements like “But this is lisp. We're very non-functional and very proud of it.” are even disrespectful to Shen, LFE, Hackett, etc, users.

I am lisper and I am not *proud* when I see Emacs/Elisp not compiling because of some *yet another* *trivial* bug not caught by a type system. I am not proud when I see *trivial* Guix/Guile errors caught by *users* during *evaluation*.

Lisp ≠ Common Lisp.

@mastoabed @orbifx If anything, Lisps are a family of languages, but "the Lisp", if such a thing exists at all, is a dialect that unified a large number of dialects that were in use at the time - which is exactly Common Lisp.