3 ms·

>Is it that absurd? Where is Scheme's CLOS, condition system, built-in debugging framework, and batteries-included standard library? Type declarations? Dynamic

by Volt 9y ago

>Is it that absurd? Where is Scheme's CLOS, condition system, built-in debugging framework, and batteries-included standard library? Type declarations? Dynamic scoping? Multi-methods? Does Lisp from 1960 have these things? Then I guess it isn't really Lisp?

openasocket 9y ago
He was just giving those as examples of ways in which Scheme and Common Lisp differ. Which is a fair point. Of course it does raise the question: are those features essential attributes of the Platonic ideal that is True Lisp, or simply nice addons Common Lisp provides?
- Volt 9y ago
  Yeah, that's what I was getting at.
Jach 9y ago
How I see it, Lisp 1.5 was Lisp, but as time went on and many 'versions' of Lisp for different systems with different capabilities came into being, there was no longer really a singular Lisp. Then there was a great unification that spit out Common Lisp, and that became Lisp. So if Lisp 1.5 was released today as something new, it wouldn't be Lisp, but merely another Lisp-like. It's too different. No one today thinks that if you drop "Lisp" in a conversation you really mean Lisp 1.5. (Maybe if you write it as LISP...) It's either going to mean Common Lisp, or maybe a reference to the vague Lisp Family. I don't think Lisp will ever be synonymous with "Scheme". Maybe you'd appreciate some Lisp history, to also answer your question about "what other dialect[s]"? http://www.paulgraham.com/thist.html http://www.paulgraham.com/thist.html http://lispm.de/30ycltl http://lispm.de/30ycltl
- Volt 9y ago
  I do know some of the history. I was just asking those questions as a challenge. Regarding the question of the other dialect, the parent used the term as a way of distancing Scheme from what I assume is the one true Lisp: Common Lisp. But the point the passage they had an issue with noted two dialects. The other, of course, being that one true Lisp. The way I see it, the things that make Lisp "Lisp" are not exclusive to either one. One might say that the intersecting characteristics aren't interesting, but these characteristics are what Lisp is truly about. SML and Caml are both ML. Haskell 98 and Glasgow Haskell are both Haskell. Dyalog APL and APL2 are both APL. And so on.
lispm 9y ago
No, but the Common Lisp of 1984 has much of the Lisp of 1960. It's backwards compatible in many ways.

by Volt 9y ago

openasocket 9y ago

He was just giving those as examples of ways in which Scheme and Common Lisp differ. Which is a fair point. Of course it does raise the question: are those features essential attributes of the Platonic ideal that is True Lisp, or simply nice addons Common Lisp provides?

Volt 9y ago
Yeah, that's what I was getting at.

Jach 9y ago

How I see it, Lisp 1.5 was Lisp, but as time went on and many 'versions' of Lisp for different systems with different capabilities came into being, there was no longer really a singular Lisp. Then there was a great unification that spit out Common Lisp, and that became Lisp. So if Lisp 1.5 was released today as something new, it wouldn't be Lisp, but merely another Lisp-like. It's too different. No one today thinks that if you drop "Lisp" in a conversation you really mean Lisp 1.5. (Maybe if you write it as LISP...) It's either going to mean Common Lisp, or maybe a reference to the vague Lisp Family. I don't think Lisp will ever be synonymous with "Scheme". Maybe you'd appreciate some Lisp history, to also answer your question about "what other dialect[s]"? http://www.paulgraham.com/thist.html http://www.paulgraham.com/thist.html http://lispm.de/30ycltl http://lispm.de/30ycltl

Volt 9y ago
I do know some of the history. I was just asking those questions as a challenge. Regarding the question of the other dialect, the parent used the term as a way of distancing Scheme from what I assume is the one true Lisp: Common Lisp. But the point the passage they had an issue with noted two dialects. The other, of course, being that one true Lisp. The way I see it, the things that make Lisp "Lisp" are not exclusive to either one. One might say that the intersecting characteristics aren't interesting, but these characteristics are what Lisp is truly about. SML and Caml are both ML. Haskell 98 and Glasgow Haskell are both Haskell. Dyalog APL and APL2 are both APL. And so on.

lispm 9y ago

No, but the Common Lisp of 1984 has much of the Lisp of 1960. It's backwards compatible in many ways.