4 ms·
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/wha
by 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 agoKaz'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 agoAre 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.