> So, yes, they all belong to the same proto-language family, but constantly referring to them as a unique family is doing a disservice to each of them. This i

> So, yes, they all belong to the same proto-language family, but constantly referring to them as a unique family is doing a disservice to each of them. This is like saying that referring to dialects of English as "dialects" is doing them a disservice. If you are studying them, it is, if you are learning English as a second language, it is not. If you look close enough, the differences are huge (after all, that's why someone created a specific lisp dialect in first place), but from a distance, they are all still pretty similar. And finally, I rarely witnessed any discussion about those differences among lisp programmers, they were merely referred to when discussion how to implement something: "X-style Y", where Y is some CS-concept and X is some lisp dialect tailored to Y - and implementing anything in your preferred dialect is usually "trivial", though not necessarily performing as well as the implementation in some dialect tailored to the task.