3 ms·
As gammafactor notes, Racket is not Common Lisp. Nor does it have any other implementations, free or proprietary. That's one of the great advantages of Common
by zeveb 11y ago
As gammafactor notes, Racket is not Common Lisp. Nor does it have any other implementations, free or proprietary. That's one of the great advantages of Common Lisp: a single standard, implemented multiple times by multiple people, running on many platforms.
Racket is definitely neat. I don't know for certain, but I hope it learns from some of the same lessons that CL learned from. Still, why not use the standardised, industrial-strength Lisp?
- baldfat 11y agoBut the title of the post wasn't a Common Lisp ... it was a Lisp interpreter which technically Racket is a Lisp.
- wtbob 11y ago> But the title of the post wasn't a Common Lisp ... it was a Lisp interpreter which technically Racket is a Lisp. Common Lisp is Lisp: it's a standard which specifies the minimum required functionality of a Lisp implementation. Anything which doesn't meet that standard isn't Lisp. Scheme, Racket, Hylang, Clojure may each be a Lisp, but none is Lisp (unless one of them has bothered to implement the Common Lisp standard).