You're saying Clojure is a lisp here, but every other comment of yours says the opposite. That's what I'm responding to.
>> This paragraph is something you wrote
> Yes?
I don't know why you're chopping my sentences in half to have fake points to respond to. I was saying the paragraph was written by you and for you. It is not helpful for beginners trying to get into a language to read random names and other languages thrown at them, and be told "It's like this other language you don't know about, but not quite." That's how you get people clicking away from your site.
It's just a weird hill to die on to say there's a problem with calling Clojure a LISP because it will "confuse" people. It doesn't confuse people that know what LISP is. Beginners are always going to be confused, that's par for the course.
Yes?
> something pedantic most people don't agree with
How so?
> Obviously the author considers Clojure a Lisp
The revised paragraph still insists that Clojure is a dialect of Lisp, like before.
> ridiculous to say Clojure is confusing people into thinking all lisps are functional
I've witnessed it first hand a number of times now, from people whose only exposure to the Lisp world is Clojure.