3 ms·
Some people (including someone who worked on the CL standard) opined Scheme is not a Lisp: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.lisp/Bj8Hx6mZEYI[1-
by calibraxis 11y ago
Some people (including someone who worked on the CL standard) opined Scheme is not a Lisp: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.lisp/Bj8Hx6mZEYI[1-25] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.lisp/Bj8Hx...
In any discussion involving Common Lisp, there will be the opinion that "Clojure is not a Lisp" without (in my view) providing sufficient context for this clearly confusing statement.
(FWIW, I call Clojure a Lisp. It is clearly in the Lisp tradition, not to mention more technical things like: code-is-data, serious REPL, accurate numbers like 10.00000000000000001M. I don't think "Lisp" should be reserved for mainly incremental improvements on an old movement.)
- lispm 11y ago> Code-is-data, serious REPL, accurate numbers Like Prolog or Julia.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- calibraxis 11y agoThat’s not a quote. You capitalized "Code-is-data" as if it were starting its own sentence. Had you quoted the whole sentence, your response would've seemed more like a non-sequitur. In any case, there is no definition of even "chair". (Which partitions the world into chair and not-chair. Simply imagine a continuum between a particular chair morphing into a not-chair; where exactly does it stop being a chair?) So I'm unconcerned about edge-cases, where a language is actually in a fuzzy part of that continuum. Not to mention those amusing blogposts claiming "Javascript is a Lisp!" which maybe aren't objectively true but inspiring.
- pygy_ 11y agoJulia is arguably a Lisp too. Add first class functions to the mix.