zlacker

>>Anon84+(OP)
Eye contact makes me very uncomfortable.”

“I suck at small talk.”

“I have rigid routines.”

“I hyper-focus on my hobbies.”

“I am always fidgeting.”

“Social interaction exhausts me.”

“I really bad at making friends.”

“I don’t fit in; people find me weird.”

I never considered it althought I'm ticking all the buttons (bad gear ? [0])

[0] https://youtube.com/@audiopilz?si=g6iGJK3ygnCWESWW

>>d-lisp+ug
You could add "I'm a HN regular" as a diagnostic criterium.

The HN crowd is surely over-represented in ASD, which makes sense for people enjoying debating nerdy topics and pedantry.

And "I like Lisp" should be an automatic qualifier.

>>coldte+Jh
I am schizotypy and I very much love Common Lisp but not so much Racket haha

>>escand+pp
How do you feel about Scheme ?

>>d-lisp+fq
lisp-1 (s) give me the chills: very much prefer doubled namespaces. Though these days I focus on systems security or threat analysis. I still fondly remember the days where I could launch Emacs with sbcl and write some Montecarlo simulations on Common Lisp with electric-parens haha Those were the days of stimulating learning

>>escand+pr
That's funny, I never found doubled namespaces that interesting; what are your opinions, why do you prefer them ?

> electric parens

I get you, I was amazed by the litterature around lisps (I always found the beginning of SICP (the wizard-programmer analogy) quite inspiring and fun)

>>d-lisp+0t
Lisp-2 virgins want to name a variable 'list' and not shadow the function named 'list', so they add on a separate function binding to each symbol. "So you have to type sharpquote if you want the function value of a symbol," they say. "What's the big deal?" Except they don't stop there: symbols also have to have package awareness and "property lists", or in other words an arbitrary number of other bindings.

Scheme chads understand that perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away. They realize functions are nothing special, just another object that can be manipulated and operated on, so why create a separate namespace and binding for them? Why put bindings in the symbol at all, since if you are designing your language correctly bindings will vary with lexical environment? So symbols have been stripped down to just a name that the language recognizes as an identifier for a value, function, special form, or whatever else. And functions are just values that get applied whenever in head position of an eval'd list.

I jest, I jest. Seriously, I love Common Lisp, but I'm with you: Lisp-1s appeal better to my aesthetic sensibilities.