Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

An article that would title "Lisp beyond Clojure" would indeed talk about the Lisp family of languages. What is a very bad in that title is that it focuses on Racket, just as if the title was: "Racket - this is how Lisp looks like beyond Clojure". And that is the main problem I have with the title. The ideal title would be IMO "What could Clojure learn from Racket".



If you understand what the title means well enough to object to its usage, that's solid proof that the title has communicated effectively.

> What is a very bad in that title is that it focuses on Racket, just as if the title was: "Racket - this is how Lisp looks like beyond Clojure".

That's your own interpretation--you could easily have interpreted it as "Racket--an example of a Lisp beyond Clojure".


I can understand and consider the choice of words to be bad.


But on what basis would you consider them to be bad?




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: