3 ms·

99% of the time, the word "lisp" does not mean "Common Lisp" specifically. When you mean Common Lisp, you say Common Lisp. When you mean any language in the fam

99% of the time, the word "lisp" does not mean "Common Lisp" specifically. When you mean Common Lisp, you say Common Lisp. When you mean any language in the family of lisp languages, you say lisp. This includes hundreds of languages.

junke 11y ago
99% of the time? Common.
- hellofunk 11y ago
  heh, don't confuse the readers
  - tjr 11y ago
    It's not so much the readers we need to be concerned about here, but the evaluators.
    - hellofunk 11y ago
      good one
lispm 11y ago
Ever heard of Lisp 1.5, UCI Lisp, MacLisp, ISLisp, New Implementation of Lisp, Lisp Machine Lisp, Standard Lisp ,Franz Lisp, Emacs Lisp, ISLisp, Autolisp, Visual Lisp, and many many other Lisp dialects? Notice something? These all have Lisp in their name. They all share a core language. None of those is Common Lisp, but Common Lisp is directly related to them, since it also shares the same core language. Common Lisp can easily run Lisp code from 50 years ago. Newlisp can't.
- hellofunk 11y ago
  To be honest, I'm not sure what point you are making. But I know that my point still stands.
  - lispm 11y ago
    > To be honest, I'm not sure what point you are making. I'll repeat it for you: Lisp dialects are defined by a common core language. Newlisp does not have that core language. Even if it uses the same name for functionality, it does different things: Lisp: (cons 1 2) -> (1 . 2) newlisp (cons 1 2) -> (1 2) Lisp (+ 1.2 2) -> 3.2 newlisp (+ 1.2 2) -> 3 That's just the trivial stuff. It's basically impossible to run any Lisp code in newlisp without completely rewriting it. When I say Lisp, I'm talking about a language which is in the tradition of McCarthy's Lisp, where I don't need to throw away my books, implementations, libraries, applications. newlisp is a derived language just like ML, Logo, Javascript, Racket, Clojure and countless other languages. Just like Java is not a C dialect, but somehow influenced by it.
    - hellofunk 11y ago
      Clojure is widely considered a lisp, but it also does not have cons cells. You are free to use your own definition of "lisp" but it is contrary to the widely accepted use of the term.
      - lispm 11y ago
        I don't think Clojure is a Lisp. iT's just another Lisp inspired language. Again, zero code of the past fifty+ years of Lisp runs in Clojure. iT is fully incompatible with any Lisp dialect. It shares zero lines of code. Don't believe what people tell you, think yourself. if you had a language, which uses { and }, would you call it a C, if it is 100% incompatible to any line of C written out there? For some reason some people think any random incompatible language with parentheses is a Lisp. That's because they use some completely unspecific definition of Lisp, which is based on vague features, but which has no practical consequences.
        11y ago

junke 11y ago

99% of the time? Common.

hellofunk 11y ago
heh, don't confuse the readers
- tjr 11y ago
  It's not so much the readers we need to be concerned about here, but the evaluators.
  - hellofunk 11y ago
    good one

lispm 11y ago

Ever heard of Lisp 1.5, UCI Lisp, MacLisp, ISLisp, New Implementation of Lisp, Lisp Machine Lisp, Standard Lisp ,Franz Lisp, Emacs Lisp, ISLisp, Autolisp, Visual Lisp, and many many other Lisp dialects? Notice something? These all have Lisp in their name. They all share a core language. None of those is Common Lisp, but Common Lisp is directly related to them, since it also shares the same core language. Common Lisp can easily run Lisp code from 50 years ago. Newlisp can't.

hellofunk 11y ago
To be honest, I'm not sure what point you are making. But I know that my point still stands.
- lispm 11y ago
  > To be honest, I'm not sure what point you are making. I'll repeat it for you: Lisp dialects are defined by a common core language. Newlisp does not have that core language. Even if it uses the same name for functionality, it does different things: Lisp: (cons 1 2) -> (1 . 2) newlisp (cons 1 2) -> (1 2) Lisp (+ 1.2 2) -> 3.2 newlisp (+ 1.2 2) -> 3 That's just the trivial stuff. It's basically impossible to run any Lisp code in newlisp without completely rewriting it. When I say Lisp, I'm talking about a language which is in the tradition of McCarthy's Lisp, where I don't need to throw away my books, implementations, libraries, applications. newlisp is a derived language just like ML, Logo, Javascript, Racket, Clojure and countless other languages. Just like Java is not a C dialect, but somehow influenced by it.
  - hellofunk 11y ago
    Clojure is widely considered a lisp, but it also does not have cons cells. You are free to use your own definition of "lisp" but it is contrary to the widely accepted use of the term.
    - lispm 11y ago
      I don't think Clojure is a Lisp. iT's just another Lisp inspired language. Again, zero code of the past fifty+ years of Lisp runs in Clojure. iT is fully incompatible with any Lisp dialect. It shares zero lines of code. Don't believe what people tell you, think yourself. if you had a language, which uses { and }, would you call it a C, if it is 100% incompatible to any line of C written out there? For some reason some people think any random incompatible language with parentheses is a Lisp. That's because they use some completely unspecific definition of Lisp, which is based on vague features, but which has no practical consequences.
      - 11y ago