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.
> 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)
That's truly a shame scripting/glue languages took a different path than lisp, but well, you can always lisp shape anything.
(Paraphrase, I don't recall the words)
If you like Factorio you should be tested for autism because you might be autistic. If you like Pymods (a mod that adds an extreme number of hoops to the game) you should be tested for autism because there's a chance you don't have it.
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.
The peak ASD diagnostic criterium should be Forth though.