So, homoiconicity is a trifling, meaningless similarity?
"Sure, it may be homoiconic, use prefix notation, have first-class functions (in additional to all the other usual functional paradigms that aren't unique to lisps) but it's not a lisp."
Big ok to that one. This must be pedantry of the highest caliber, not ignorance.
"Sure, it may be homoiconic, use prefix notation, have first-class functions (in additional to all the other usual functional paradigms that aren't unique to lisps) but it's not a lisp."
Big ok to that one. This must be pedantry of the highest caliber, not ignorance.