3 ms·

Most of those things appear in scheme. Slightly different naming, but the same, more or less. To say that there's compatability between Scheme and CL, and no c

Most of those things appear in scheme. Slightly different naming, but the same, more or less. To say that there's compatability between Scheme and CL, and no compatability with Racket is ridiculus: Racket has Scheme compatability modes. As for the language being called Lisp if it's Lisp, two of the examples you list in the "non lisp" category do so: Clojure's website claims it is a "dialect of lisp," and AIM-349 describes scheme as "essentially a full-funarg LISP." As make no mistake, all of these languages, from Common Lisp to Clojure to Scheme, are dialects. They have the same origins, and they share many of the same ideas.

lispm 10y ago
> AIM-349 describes scheme as "essentially a full-funarg LISP That's long ago. That was kind of true in the mid 70s. > and no compatability with Racket is ridiculus CL has no Racket compatibility. Zero. Racket has no CL compatibility. Zero. Porting programs is a full rewrite. > Clojure's website claims it is a "dialect of lisp," Best it is a new language, derived from Lisp and influenced by C++, C#, Common Lisp, Erlang, Haskell, Mathematica, ML, Prolog, Scheme, Java, Racket, Ruby. 'Dialect' in this case is the euphemism for 'fully incompatible' with 'random operator renames and shuffling functionality' where it kind of looked compatible. > As make no mistake, all of these languages, from Common Lisp to Clojure to Scheme, are dialects. Sure, but not of Lisp. Of those three, only Common Lisp is a Lisp dialect. > They have the same origins, and they share many of the same ideas. Less and less. As a starter: Clojure has no Lisp lists as basic data structure.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  So scheme WAS a lisp, and now isn't? What changed that makes you think that? And it had better not be nil/false equality. Even McCarthy says that was, if not a mistake, then an accident. As for Clojure not having Lisp lists, its list implementation is... eccentric, but it DOES have lists. Actually, scratch that, its list implementation, from a Lisp perspective is broken. Psychotically broken. But it DOES have one. Even if it's insane. What, will you say the same about newlisp lists? For that matter, is Picolisp a Lisp?
  - kazinator 10y ago
    > So scheme WAS a lisp, and now isn't? EINE: Eine is not Emacs. ZWEI: Zwei was Eine, Initially. And, thus: SWALANI: Swalani Was A Lisp, And Now Isn't. A dialect waiting to be invented. :) What might be a recursive acronym for Scheme, though? Oh, oh ... I just got one: "Scheme Crams Hygiene into Every Macro Expansion."
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      It doesn't, for the record. Not any implementation that you'd use. The acronym's good though, I just didn't want anybody else thinking that was true, given how many people already do.
  - lispm 10y ago
    > What changed that makes you think that? R6RS > As for Clojure not having Lisp lists, its list implementation is... eccentric, but it DOES have lists. Lazy persistent sequences is the basic abstraction.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      Uggghh. R6RS was an absolute mess. But I'd still say it was a lisp. Have you looked at R7RS, the latest spec, that goes back to the drawing board on a lot of the stuff R6RS did?

lispm 10y ago

> AIM-349 describes scheme as "essentially a full-funarg LISP That's long ago. That was kind of true in the mid 70s. > and no compatability with Racket is ridiculus CL has no Racket compatibility. Zero. Racket has no CL compatibility. Zero. Porting programs is a full rewrite. > Clojure's website claims it is a "dialect of lisp," Best it is a new language, derived from Lisp and influenced by C++, C#, Common Lisp, Erlang, Haskell, Mathematica, ML, Prolog, Scheme, Java, Racket, Ruby. 'Dialect' in this case is the euphemism for 'fully incompatible' with 'random operator renames and shuffling functionality' where it kind of looked compatible. > As make no mistake, all of these languages, from Common Lisp to Clojure to Scheme, are dialects. Sure, but not of Lisp. Of those three, only Common Lisp is a Lisp dialect. > They have the same origins, and they share many of the same ideas. Less and less. As a starter: Clojure has no Lisp lists as basic data structure.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
So scheme WAS a lisp, and now isn't? What changed that makes you think that? And it had better not be nil/false equality. Even McCarthy says that was, if not a mistake, then an accident. As for Clojure not having Lisp lists, its list implementation is... eccentric, but it DOES have lists. Actually, scratch that, its list implementation, from a Lisp perspective is broken. Psychotically broken. But it DOES have one. Even if it's insane. What, will you say the same about newlisp lists? For that matter, is Picolisp a Lisp?
- kazinator 10y ago
  > So scheme WAS a lisp, and now isn't? EINE: Eine is not Emacs. ZWEI: Zwei was Eine, Initially. And, thus: SWALANI: Swalani Was A Lisp, And Now Isn't. A dialect waiting to be invented. :) What might be a recursive acronym for Scheme, though? Oh, oh ... I just got one: "Scheme Crams Hygiene into Every Macro Expansion."
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    It doesn't, for the record. Not any implementation that you'd use. The acronym's good though, I just didn't want anybody else thinking that was true, given how many people already do.
- lispm 10y ago
  > What changed that makes you think that? R6RS > As for Clojure not having Lisp lists, its list implementation is... eccentric, but it DOES have lists. Lazy persistent sequences is the basic abstraction.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    Uggghh. R6RS was an absolute mess. But I'd still say it was a lisp. Have you looked at R7RS, the latest spec, that goes back to the drawing board on a lot of the stuff R6RS did?