4 ms·

I read Pittman. The thing is, the Scheme community may not be able to share code directly, but we are able to, and often do, share ideas. In addition, many Sche

I read Pittman. The thing is, the Scheme community may not be able to share code directly, but we are able to, and often do, share ideas. In addition, many Schemers are active in the CL community and vice versa, like Pittman. Many of the same people were involved in the standardization effort, and the creation of both. A language spectrum does indeed serve as a diverse commiunity. One us Schemers are a part of. I know my history, I just disagree with you.

lispm 10y ago
His name is Pitman. Kent Pitman. > Many of the same people were involved in the standardization effort, and the creation of both. I doubt that this is the case for R7RS. > The thing is, the Scheme community may not be able to share code directly, but we are able to, and often do, share ideas. That's my point. There are few ideas shared and no code. Today the various spinoffs of Lisp have their own communities. I don't say that it is bad or good, it's just the way it is. That's not only the fate of a programming language family, it also happens in other areas, that domains are divided into groups which have problems to understand each other and which are not able to track or use the work of other groups. The groups have different preferences and their topic gets an independent life.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  Sorry. I always get names wrong. As for r7rs, Sussman, at the very least, was on the commitee. Several other Lispers as well, IIRC, but it would take too long to check. All the Lisps have different communities. That's why the languages are different. There's some overlap, but if the communities were identical than all the languages would be the same. But then, you could say the same of C, C++, and Java, which don't all share code, but are all in the same family.
  - lispm 10y ago
    Sussman is a Schemer.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      To be fair, he's done some lisp work. But that's true enough. Steele was on the commitee for many years, although not this one. I'd give you a list of CLers on the commitee, but I honestly can't dig through 12 people's online profiles just to prove a point right now.
- imagist 10y ago
  I still don't see anything here which indicates to me that I should give a shit about NewLisp being called "NewLisp", or about referring to CL/Scheme/Racket/whatever as "Lisps".
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    Kaz's point is that NewLisp is slightly confusing, but it's not, not incredibly, so I don't see that point. I think terminology's important, but that particular instance isn't. As for why people complain about calling things Lisps, it's a mystery to me. Now complaints about calling Racket Scheme, OTOH, I get. Scheme has a specification which Racket doesn't comply to: they changed the name for a reason when they started to deviate. Calling Racket Scheme is like seeing a language that's kind of similar to C and just calling it C.
  - kazinator 10y ago
    Are you expecting a sound technical argument why designers should show respect at least for the sources where they cribbed most of their core ideas? Not piss into the pool where they learned to swim (even if merely the "doggy paddle")? Sorry, I don't have that argument.

lispm 10y ago

His name is Pitman. Kent Pitman. > Many of the same people were involved in the standardization effort, and the creation of both. I doubt that this is the case for R7RS. > The thing is, the Scheme community may not be able to share code directly, but we are able to, and often do, share ideas. That's my point. There are few ideas shared and no code. Today the various spinoffs of Lisp have their own communities. I don't say that it is bad or good, it's just the way it is. That's not only the fate of a programming language family, it also happens in other areas, that domains are divided into groups which have problems to understand each other and which are not able to track or use the work of other groups. The groups have different preferences and their topic gets an independent life.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Sorry. I always get names wrong. As for r7rs, Sussman, at the very least, was on the commitee. Several other Lispers as well, IIRC, but it would take too long to check. All the Lisps have different communities. That's why the languages are different. There's some overlap, but if the communities were identical than all the languages would be the same. But then, you could say the same of C, C++, and Java, which don't all share code, but are all in the same family.
- lispm 10y ago
  Sussman is a Schemer.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    To be fair, he's done some lisp work. But that's true enough. Steele was on the commitee for many years, although not this one. I'd give you a list of CLers on the commitee, but I honestly can't dig through 12 people's online profiles just to prove a point right now.
imagist 10y ago
I still don't see anything here which indicates to me that I should give a shit about NewLisp being called "NewLisp", or about referring to CL/Scheme/Racket/whatever as "Lisps".
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  Kaz's point is that NewLisp is slightly confusing, but it's not, not incredibly, so I don't see that point. I think terminology's important, but that particular instance isn't. As for why people complain about calling things Lisps, it's a mystery to me. Now complaints about calling Racket Scheme, OTOH, I get. Scheme has a specification which Racket doesn't comply to: they changed the name for a reason when they started to deviate. Calling Racket Scheme is like seeing a language that's kind of similar to C and just calling it C.
- kazinator 10y ago
  Are you expecting a sound technical argument why designers should show respect at least for the sources where they cribbed most of their core ideas? Not piss into the pool where they learned to swim (even if merely the "doggy paddle")? Sorry, I don't have that argument.