3 ms·
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
by Jach 10y 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 10y agoI 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.