Curious what you didn't like? I found it to be very natural and humourous. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion for sure!

"used everywhere" Everywhere is a big place. Where do you mean?

​@@allanschougaard3701Racket is the subject in the video, so I was referring to that specifically, though I could mean lispy languages in general. I would say it's pretty rare to not see any lambdas in any given random racket/scheme/lisp file.

@@maccsguitar Where lambda enters the picture: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rH6neaOGg8SjZpofeature=shared&t=255

"Symbol fn would be even better" how so?

​@@allanschougaard3701 Church selected lambda and went on to formulate lambda-calculus. He could have used "hat" and the name could have been something else. That's history, but in current programming languages it is customary to call them functions. Lambdas, hats or other could-be-churchisms seem unnecessary now that we have renamed the concept in this field and operate by different semantics than lambda-calculus. Functions in programming languages don't operate by replacement as lambda-calculus does. As for why fn would be better in my opinion, it is shorter to write and refers to the concept of functions. Shorter format optimizes for experts who know what it means and have to read and write it every day, while still being an understandable shorthand for the beginner. My experience as a beginner was that I understood the shorthand "defun" immediately to mean "define function", whereas it took me a _year_ to understand that "lambda" is doing almost exactly the same thing. I avoided using it for all that time just because I did not understand the word and what it refers to. By that time, I had been programming in javascript and still hadn't connected the dots that js "function (x) {...}" and lisp "(lambda (x) ...)" are similar. Any of "fn", "fun", "func" or "function" (for example) would have been so much easier to understand and I would have been able to progress much faster.

Something with a long tail?

Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man.😊

Va?!

@ kanelbulle (iaf i Västerås)

@@tgerdin1 snabel-a in Denmark

Do the location of }s matter?

@ *sigh* - joking or not, if you have to apologize for it ahead of time, it’s probably best not to say it.

Yup, just like make-string. Though that module wasn't the subject of my talk and I have mixed feelings about its existence.

@@jackfirth8890 Possibly a dumb question as I am new to Racket, but how do you turn a string literal or mutable string into a immutable string? Or maybe just, how do you initialize an immutable string with a string literal?

@lockbert99 String literals are already immutable. Also there's the string->immutable-string function.

It is not at all "obvious" that statistical plagiarism networks will "replace" programming unless you're a college student that's never built anything but has crypto investments

Yeah! Metalinguistic abstraction and language-oriented programming are both terms for more or less the same idea, with slightly different emphases.

Oh no, it was just a paper roll, not a bread roll.

Reminds me of Thanksgiving in an US Gaol. That was a Food Transfer Protocol!

There's the Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol.

Lmaao.