acronymania (was: Re: Real-life examples of lexical binding in Emacs Lisp)

[Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se>]

Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes:

>> I use "LISP" in the context of the history and
>> origin of the technology but I don't have a defined
>> endpoint at what time history gives way to your
>> everyday "Lisp".
>
> It seems to have been a byproduct of the general
> attitude that also made "UNIX" "Unix", "COBOL"
> "Cobol", "FORTH" "Forth", "EMACS" "Emacs", etc.

UNIX, despite being uppercased, isn't an acronym but
a pun/poke on Multics - which by the was *is* an
acronym:

    Multiplexed Information and Computing Service

Only "Multi" should be put within quotation marks as
that part never worked out, which is where the
fun begins.

With UNIX/Unix the distinction is clearer (?) than
with LISP/Lisp as UNIX is the trademark that is
awarded/sold to (at that point) official
implementations - and Unix is everything else.

I consider GNU/Linux to be Unix tho some people insist
it is UN*X, *nix, Unix-like, and so on. Hey, GNU is
not Unix but that's exactly what it is. The "x" in
Linux is a UNIX "x". The instigation to do Linux was
in order to be able to use the university SunOS UNIX,
only at home. It is Unix!

COBOL is an acronym: Common Business-Oriented Language
and like EMACS (acronym/abbreviation of
"Editor MACroS") they have turned into names by now -
simple as that, I suppose.

FORTH isn't an acronym so one might as well make it
a name with no regrets. All of those I would use as
capitalized names, except for perhaps in some
historical contexts - and to be sure, I never speak of
Cobol and so Forth.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573