[deckard1]

When pedantry goes wrong...?

This article repeats this "TL;DR Lisp is not based on the Lambda Calculus"

But that's not actually what McCarthy said. McCarthy said:

> one of the myths concerning LISP that people think up or invent for themselves becomes apparent, and that is that LISP is somehow a realization of the lambda calculus

"Based on" and "realization of" are two different things. This kind of exaggerated or hyperbolic pedantry strikes me as clickbait. Which is unfortunate, because the article does contain some good content.

If you read the LISP I manual, you will see that concepts beyond the obvious lambda notation are used directly from The Calculi of Lambda Conversion. Notably, the distinction between forms and functions.

Clearly, we're splitting some very fine hairs here.