4 ms·

> SICP uses Scheme, which is not Lisp. Wikipedia [0]: > Scheme is a functional programming language and one of the two main dialects of the programming langua

by icc97 10y ago

> SICP uses Scheme, which is not Lisp. Wikipedia [0]: > Scheme is a functional programming language and one of the two main dialects of the programming language Lisp. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language...

Jach 10y ago
Keyword: dialect. But Erik Naggum, 2002 [0]: > The "Lisp" Scheme is a dialect of is no longer the current meaning of "Lisp". It is somewhat like calling English a dialect of German because of ancient history that has since between invalidated by each of their separate evolution, Fahrvergnügen, Weltanschauung, Kindergarten, and Pennsylvania to the contrary notwithstanding. There is also a very limited value in talking about "Germanic languages" in terms of your actual ability to use any of the Germanic languags. You do not order the "vertebrate" in a restaurant, but generally choose between fish or bird or meat. In other words, there is a time when an abstraction and a commonality has completely ceased to be valuable. [0] http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3224964049435643@naggum.net.txt http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3224964049435643@naggum....
- gizmo385 10y ago
  I feel like there should be a "No True LISP" fallacy in CS... It expresses pretty much all of the core principals of a LISP. If it looks like a LISP, thinks like a LISP, behaves like a LISP; then do you really gain anything by trying to separate from other LISPs?
  - Jach 10y ago
    Is Python a LISP? Is JavaScript a LISP? Is Java a LISP? What do you mean by LISP, by its core principles? What does a different set of core principles look like that lends itself to a different family? I threw in my vague classification above: sexps and macros. But you can have macros without sexps, and sexps without macros (lots of "toy lisp interpreters" do that), are they LISPs? Lastly one wonders why we don't go calling all these C-like languages ALGOLs. What do you gain by trying to separate from other ALGOLs? Or less extremely, why don't we consider Python and Ruby to be the same family, or Java and C#? Those pairs are arguably more similar than the pair of Common Lisp and Scheme.
    - lacampbell 10y ago
      Lastly one wonders why we don't go calling all these C-like languages ALGOLs. We sometimes do though, don't we? Not that terminology, but I often see the people talking about "curly brace languages" or "C/C++/Java/C#".
      - Jach 10y ago
        Sure, we see there's a grouping, and might identify it when trying to create a cluster, but it's not as pervasive as the Lisp Family meme. When Clojure came out, it was advertised as "a Lisp" (not "Lisp", but "a Lisp"). When Go came out, it wasn't advertised as "an ALGOL", or "a curly brace language". What makes so many programmers want to associate only good qualities with this floaty abstraction of "Lisp" (that isn't simply Common Lisp) such that the arguments over how Lispy Clojure/Scheme/EmacsLisp/whatever inevitably keep happening, such that things can advertise as "a Lisp" and get attention despite not having some pretty core Common Lisp functionality? The only other language I see something similar to that is with Python. Go programmers say it's like programming Python but loads faster and with type security, Nim programmers say it's like programming Python but loads faster and with type security, I may have even heard something similar from an OCaml user once, but you look at either of them and they're both missing key Pythonic features. Edit: In hindsight at the end of the day I should have been more careful with the "Scheme is not Lisp" (at least I didn't say "Scheme is not a Lisp") comment...I'm only continuing these threads because I read the original submission pretty close to when it was posted and back then I only knew a bit of SICP, tried enough Lisp to duplicate some SICP examples, and was frustrated with the Lisp-2 syntax along with what I perceived as a REPL freakout on any error so I put Lisp aside. It would have been helpful for someone to tell me "Scheme is not Lisp" back then and get me to actually explore all that Common Lisp has to offer.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Lastly one wonders why we don't go calling all these C-like languages ALGOLs. Referring to the broad Algol-family isn't uncommon (well, at least, I do it quite a bit.) > Or less extremely, why don't we consider Python and Ruby to be the same family, or Java and C#? Those pairs are arguably more similar than the pair of Common Lisp and Scheme. Java and C# are frequently described as being part of a single close language family (much closer than the broad Algol-family; sometimes in an intermediate-breadth family that also includes ), and Ruby and Python are much less similar than Scheme and Common Lisp.
- abecedarius 10y ago
  I think Erik Naggum was a bit imperialistic in wanting 'Lisp' to mean Common Lisp. One nice thing Clojure did was to revitalize the Lisp-as-language-family meme.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Volt 10y ago
  What is the other dialect?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by icc97 10y ago

Jach 10y ago

Keyword: dialect. But Erik Naggum, 2002 [0]: > The "Lisp" Scheme is a dialect of is no longer the current meaning of "Lisp". It is somewhat like calling English a dialect of German because of ancient history that has since between invalidated by each of their separate evolution, Fahrvergnügen, Weltanschauung, Kindergarten, and Pennsylvania to the contrary notwithstanding. There is also a very limited value in talking about "Germanic languages" in terms of your actual ability to use any of the Germanic languags. You do not order the "vertebrate" in a restaurant, but generally choose between fish or bird or meat. In other words, there is a time when an abstraction and a commonality has completely ceased to be valuable. [0] http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3224964049435643@naggum.net.txt http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3224964049435643@naggum....

gizmo385 10y ago
I feel like there should be a "No True LISP" fallacy in CS... It expresses pretty much all of the core principals of a LISP. If it looks like a LISP, thinks like a LISP, behaves like a LISP; then do you really gain anything by trying to separate from other LISPs?
- Jach 10y ago
  Is Python a LISP? Is JavaScript a LISP? Is Java a LISP? What do you mean by LISP, by its core principles? What does a different set of core principles look like that lends itself to a different family? I threw in my vague classification above: sexps and macros. But you can have macros without sexps, and sexps without macros (lots of "toy lisp interpreters" do that), are they LISPs? Lastly one wonders why we don't go calling all these C-like languages ALGOLs. What do you gain by trying to separate from other ALGOLs? Or less extremely, why don't we consider Python and Ruby to be the same family, or Java and C#? Those pairs are arguably more similar than the pair of Common Lisp and Scheme.
  - lacampbell 10y ago
    Lastly one wonders why we don't go calling all these C-like languages ALGOLs. We sometimes do though, don't we? Not that terminology, but I often see the people talking about "curly brace languages" or "C/C++/Java/C#".
    - Jach 10y ago
      Sure, we see there's a grouping, and might identify it when trying to create a cluster, but it's not as pervasive as the Lisp Family meme. When Clojure came out, it was advertised as "a Lisp" (not "Lisp", but "a Lisp"). When Go came out, it wasn't advertised as "an ALGOL", or "a curly brace language". What makes so many programmers want to associate only good qualities with this floaty abstraction of "Lisp" (that isn't simply Common Lisp) such that the arguments over how Lispy Clojure/Scheme/EmacsLisp/whatever inevitably keep happening, such that things can advertise as "a Lisp" and get attention despite not having some pretty core Common Lisp functionality? The only other language I see something similar to that is with Python. Go programmers say it's like programming Python but loads faster and with type security, Nim programmers say it's like programming Python but loads faster and with type security, I may have even heard something similar from an OCaml user once, but you look at either of them and they're both missing key Pythonic features. Edit: In hindsight at the end of the day I should have been more careful with the "Scheme is not Lisp" (at least I didn't say "Scheme is not a Lisp") comment...I'm only continuing these threads because I read the original submission pretty close to when it was posted and back then I only knew a bit of SICP, tried enough Lisp to duplicate some SICP examples, and was frustrated with the Lisp-2 syntax along with what I perceived as a REPL freakout on any error so I put Lisp aside. It would have been helpful for someone to tell me "Scheme is not Lisp" back then and get me to actually explore all that Common Lisp has to offer.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Lastly one wonders why we don't go calling all these C-like languages ALGOLs. Referring to the broad Algol-family isn't uncommon (well, at least, I do it quite a bit.) > Or less extremely, why don't we consider Python and Ruby to be the same family, or Java and C#? Those pairs are arguably more similar than the pair of Common Lisp and Scheme. Java and C# are frequently described as being part of a single close language family (much closer than the broad Algol-family; sometimes in an intermediate-breadth family that also includes ), and Ruby and Python are much less similar than Scheme and Common Lisp.
abecedarius 10y ago
I think Erik Naggum was a bit imperialistic in wanting 'Lisp' to mean Common Lisp. One nice thing Clojure did was to revitalize the Lisp-as-language-family meme.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Volt 10y ago
What is the other dialect?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]