6 ms·

You only addressed my points showing there was a link between the communities. Just because there are links between the lisp community and other communities doe

You only addressed my points showing there was a link between the communities. Just because there are links between the lisp community and other communities doesn't mean Scheme isn't a lisp.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
lispm 10y ago
It just invalidates your arguments, nothing more. That parts of the first Scheme were once written in Maclisp 40 years ago does not make it a Lisp. An Emacs was once implemented in Maclisp, too. It doesn't make it a Lisp. It's an editor. Scheme is a different programming language with its own set of standards like R*RS and IEEE Scheme, its own community, its own code, its own libraries, its one mailing lists, its own online forums, its own user groups, its own funding, ...
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  And so does ISLisp. So does EuLisp. So did interlisp. So does elisp for that matter. Lisp isn't a language: it's a family of languages. And the idea that the languages don't share community isn't true. But that's neither here nor there.
  - lispm 10y ago
    ISLisp, Elisp and Common Lisp are sharing the same core language. ISLisp is basically a simplified Common Lisp (a Lisp-2 with a CLOS-variant and Conditions in the standard). Kent Pitman wrote a compatibility package which allows running ISLisp in CL. Elisp and Common Lisp are both coming from Maclisp, so they share the same core language. Elisp has a lot of further Common Lisp compatibility ( https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/cl/ https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/cl/ ), which is widely used in Emacs Lisp code. Standard Lisp is another Lisp, which shares the core language. Eulisp is long gone. RIP. > Lisp isn't a language: it's a family of languages. True. A family of languages which share. > And the idea that the languages don't share community isn't true. Very very very little.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      As does Scheme share with the other lisps. We took loop, most of generic setters, and readtables from CL. CL took lexical scope, and with it functions distinct from lists, from Scheme.
      - kazinator 10y ago
        Missing context ... which we took generic setters, readtables and loop from CL, and planted it into what?
        qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        Sorry. I am primarily a schemer, so that's what I'm referring to. Readtables and generic setters (as specified by SRFI-17: a bit limited compared to CL, as I understand it) are very common extensions, and there are several loop macros floating around, all inspired by CL. We also technically took dynamic scope from CL, but most schemes only have R7RS dynamic scope, which isn't so much dynamic scope as it is a hack that looks a lot like dynamic scope if you squint.
        lispm 10y ago
        Readtables and generic setters are from before Scheme and ten years before CL. LOOP was before CL, inspired by FOR from before Scheme... > We also technically took dynamic scope from CL That was already in R1RS, six years before the first definition of CL was published.
        qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        See above for my reply. As for dynamic scope being in R1RS, actually, yes. Sorry. That came from MACLisp, not CL.
      - lispm 10y ago
        > We took loop, most of generic setters, and readtables from CL. That's a nice touch ;-) , given that those existed before Scheme and thus also before Common Lisp.

You only addressed my points showing there was a link between the communities. Just because there are links between the lisp community and other communities doesn't mean Scheme isn't a lisp.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

lispm 10y ago

It just invalidates your arguments, nothing more. That parts of the first Scheme were once written in Maclisp 40 years ago does not make it a Lisp. An Emacs was once implemented in Maclisp, too. It doesn't make it a Lisp. It's an editor. Scheme is a different programming language with its own set of standards like R*RS and IEEE Scheme, its own community, its own code, its own libraries, its one mailing lists, its own online forums, its own user groups, its own funding, ...

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
And so does ISLisp. So does EuLisp. So did interlisp. So does elisp for that matter. Lisp isn't a language: it's a family of languages. And the idea that the languages don't share community isn't true. But that's neither here nor there.
- lispm 10y ago
  ISLisp, Elisp and Common Lisp are sharing the same core language. ISLisp is basically a simplified Common Lisp (a Lisp-2 with a CLOS-variant and Conditions in the standard). Kent Pitman wrote a compatibility package which allows running ISLisp in CL. Elisp and Common Lisp are both coming from Maclisp, so they share the same core language. Elisp has a lot of further Common Lisp compatibility ( https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/cl/ https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/cl/ ), which is widely used in Emacs Lisp code. Standard Lisp is another Lisp, which shares the core language. Eulisp is long gone. RIP. > Lisp isn't a language: it's a family of languages. True. A family of languages which share. > And the idea that the languages don't share community isn't true. Very very very little.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    As does Scheme share with the other lisps. We took loop, most of generic setters, and readtables from CL. CL took lexical scope, and with it functions distinct from lists, from Scheme.
    - kazinator 10y ago
      Missing context ... which we took generic setters, readtables and loop from CL, and planted it into what?
      - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        Sorry. I am primarily a schemer, so that's what I'm referring to. Readtables and generic setters (as specified by SRFI-17: a bit limited compared to CL, as I understand it) are very common extensions, and there are several loop macros floating around, all inspired by CL. We also technically took dynamic scope from CL, but most schemes only have R7RS dynamic scope, which isn't so much dynamic scope as it is a hack that looks a lot like dynamic scope if you squint.
        lispm 10y ago
        Readtables and generic setters are from before Scheme and ten years before CL. LOOP was before CL, inspired by FOR from before Scheme... > We also technically took dynamic scope from CL That was already in R1RS, six years before the first definition of CL was published.
        qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        See above for my reply. As for dynamic scope being in R1RS, actually, yes. Sorry. That came from MACLisp, not CL.
    - lispm 10y ago
      > We took loop, most of generic setters, and readtables from CL. That's a nice touch ;-) , given that those existed before Scheme and thus also before Common Lisp.