[Jtsummers]

iLemming, your reply is [dead] and I don't know why. Responding to parts of it:

> Peter Norvig made this argument explicitly in 1998, showing 16 of 23 patterns are "invisible or simpler" in Lisp

The GoF book even mentions this so Norvig's presentation is a useful read, but even the authors of the book knew it was true. It's not like he added a new idea with that bit you quoted, the useful parts of the presentation were which patterns became invisible or simpler and why.

> Let's try not to nitpick on literal wording to avoid engaging with the substance, could we?

I responded to a common, but false, claim. Don't make false claims and I won't call you out for it.

[iLemming]

You can replace Java there with pretty much any OOP language, where functions are not first-class citizens, and it will still be true. There are no "false claims" here. The main point is valid. We have orchestrated an entire industry around "objects", while much simpler abstractions have already existed. You probably just have not experienced the "true" nature of Lisp, where you can interactively change any behavior of the running program, directly from your editor, without linking, linting, compiling, restarting or even saving the code you type. The process is an enormously joyful experience, it feels like playing a video game. You probably have little idea of what we've lost and what we've gained from the industry heavily tilting towards OOP.

[Jtsummers]

> There are no "false claims" here.

You wrote:

>> The Gang of Four book exists because Java made functions second-class citizens

That is a false claim. You asserted a causal relationship between Java and the content of the GoF book that does not exist without time travel.

> You probably just have not experienced the "true" nature of Lisp, where you can interactively change any behavior of the running program, directly from your editor, without linking, linting, compiling, restarting or even saving the code you type.

Sure buddy. You know so much about me...

[iLemming]

OMG. You got me. I'm so, so sorry you caught me spreading lies about your precious programming language (or your favorite book, I don't know what you're trying to protect more). Thank you from the bottom of my heart for the diligent work of protecting the truth and keeping this place free of disinformation. Please send me a DM with your mailing address and I'll send you a medal, shipping cost included.

> Sure buddy. You know so much about me...

I should have checked your comment history first before making assumptions. Please accept my apologies if I sounded patronizing. Shouldn't be an excuse for my tone, in my defense I could say: "I said 'probably'". Still disagree with you overly correcting me since I firmly believe the overall notion of my original comment is correct. Thus I won't remove my snarky, sarcastic paragraph above.