[Brian_K_White]

The new thing was a new thing with a new name, not even pretending to be the original thing, just including it (because the new thing is a very related concept with 90% overlap), so I don't see any great crime or 'unfortunately".

Similarly, it's new name is "dictionary" not "jargon", and so simple definitions of technical terms are perfectly consistent. It's doing what it says on the tin. And speaking of doing what it says on the tin, why in the world should a "new hackers dictionary" care about lisp and not about unix?

Basically it's like, yes, exactly, he picked up the jargon file, updated it, added a lot of unix material and deemphasised lisp, and included more simple technical terms, made it more of a new dictionary, and called it a new dictionary. These are all perfectly ok things to do.

This whole critique is like complaining that someones "new blueberry pie" isn't a cake and doesn't even have any apples.

[sshine]

You're right, when I revisit this thought, there is nothing unfortunate about it.

I've re-read https://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/revision-history.html and can say that my initial reaction was just fomo'ing over my lack of early exposure to Lisp. It seems that what ESR omitted from his Jargon File was mainly stuff that made sense if you were logged into a specific set of PDP-10 machines at MIT.