2 ms·
Yes, but they also share a history and a set of syntax and ideas... Well, except Dylan, syntax-wise. But ultimately this is an argument about terminology. And t
by qwertyuiop924 11y ago
Yes, but they also share a history and a set of syntax and ideas... Well, except Dylan, syntax-wise. But ultimately this is an argument about terminology. And the majority of people would say that scheme is a lisp. A lisp. Not a language derived from lisp, that is independent. A LISP. in the LISP family, because that is a thing. And if you want proof that that is what most people think, you need only check Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lisp_programming_language_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lisp_programming_lang...
- lispm 11y agoTHat's what people thought twenty years. Today this does not matter anymore. > Yes, but they also share a history and a set of syntax and ideas... Clojure: user=> (cons 1 2) IllegalArgumentException Don't know how to create ISeq from: java.lang.Long clojure.lang.RT.seqFrom (RT.java:542) user=> (cdr '(1 . 2)) CompilerException java.lang.RuntimeException: Unable to resolve symbol: cdr in this context, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:2:1) What I say...
- qwertyuiop924 11y ago... Well, maybe you could be right. I'm not sure. I do know that when most people say "lisp," they think of scheme, clojure, etc. as in that category. I like to think that I can admit I may be wrong, and in this case I think I might be wrong.