> The innovation is that they are on the same level as lists.
I have heard this point when comparing to Scheme (Racket). I did not understand how it applied to CL. I never found an issue dealing with the different datatypes (other than initially learning what API worked with what and what was the proper generic stuff to use).
> P.S. Do you really finish up all your parans yourself???
Yes. I found paredit and its derivatives really annoying, particularly when dealing with strings and other entities. I am not always closing entire functions, so the autoclose feature was also useless to me. I can see how it can both help and get in the way when dealing with [] and {}. I do not have a strong objection to that noise. See below for my real objection to the {} syntax; it is less about the {} and more about the reason for using it.
I have heard this point when comparing to Scheme (Racket). I did not understand how it applied to CL. I never found an issue dealing with the different datatypes (other than initially learning what API worked with what and what was the proper generic stuff to use).
> P.S. Do you really finish up all your parans yourself???
Yes. I found paredit and its derivatives really annoying, particularly when dealing with strings and other entities. I am not always closing entire functions, so the autoclose feature was also useless to me. I can see how it can both help and get in the way when dealing with [] and {}. I do not have a strong objection to that noise. See below for my real objection to the {} syntax; it is less about the {} and more about the reason for using it.