Paul Graham contaminated by CL
From
B. Pym@Nobody447095@here-nor-there.org to
comp.lang.lisp on Fri Aug 22 02:59:24 2025
From Newsgroup: comp.lang.lisp
On page 14 of "On Lisp" we see:
(mapcar #'(lambda (x) (+ x 10))
'(1 2 3))
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
"(function (lambda ...)) is a pleonasm. lambda is a macro that
already expands to (function (lambda ...))."
"(lambda ..." is already long enough. Only one who has
fully embraced CL would needlessly make it even longer
by preceding it with "#'".
Daniel Weinreb, 24 Feb 2003:
Having separate "value cells" and "function cells" (to use
the "street language" way of saying it) was one of the most
unfortunate issues. We did not want to break pre-existing
programs that had a global variable named "foo" and a global
function named "foo" that were distinct. We at Symbolics
were forced to insist on this, in the face of everyone's
knowing that it was not what we would have done absent
compatibility constraints. It's hard for me to remember all
the specific things like this, but if we had had fewer
compatibility issues, I think it would have come out looking
more like Scheme in general.
Daniel Weinreb, 28 Feb 2003:
Lisp2 means that all kinds of language primitives have to
exist in two versions, or be parameterizable as to whether
they are talking about the value cell or function cell. It
makes the language bigger, and that's bad in and of itself.
--
[T]he problem is that lispniks are as cultish as any other devout group and basically fall down frothing at the mouth if they see [heterodoxy].
--- Kenny Tilton
The good news is, it's not Lisp that sucks, but Common Lisp. --- Paul Graham --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2