[eggsby]

Thanks, I'll work on elucidating the metaphor and being explicit about what I mean when I say things like 'duplicates input' (uses the parameter more than once in it's body, this is a term from Smullyan), as well as clarifying some of the language.

I want to make the idea simple to parse by breaking it down into it's pieces, if it's noticeably hard to swallow (or as you said the commentary actually detracts from my code examples) then I did it wrong!

Edit: I changed some terminology and clarified the points you mentioned, hope this helps anyone who reads this in the future, thanks again for taking the time to leave feedback :)

[brianberns]

Happy to help. I think you might also want to improve this phrase: "its impact on computer science cannot be understanded". Truly, I have not understanded it at all. :) Perhaps you meant "overstated"?

More importantly, I think that line 4 of strangeFact is a key concept that needs better explanation. Your current description ("What this does is bind the parameter fact to our strange factorial bird and return a function who knows how to do this again should it ever need another copy of itself") is confusing, IMHO. It's not clear what you mean by "should it ever need another copy of itself". It would be especially nice if you could explain this idea in terms of birds, rather than parameter bindings. Otherwise, the metaphor becomes rather superficial, I think.

I'll try to work through the rest of the article as well, time permitting.