>Your answer seems to just be that your definition of Lisp means the subset described in the 1960 paper, Not true. I also consider LISP I as LISP, Common Lisp

>Your answer seems to just be that your definition of Lisp means the subset described in the 1960 paper, Not true. I also consider LISP I as LISP, Common Lisp as LISP, and understand people calling Scheme as LISP, or Clojure as LISP. I really respect all of the works involving the LISP family. >The paper you quoted said that Lisp was originally conceived as an non-pure language (the part I quoted) and that that was unfortunate, but true (the part you quoted). The paper is referring LISP to the actual implementation and that is impure as we know. From the part I quoted, he had both pure and non-pure ideas and that I call "not black or white". >So you meant to say that the 1960 paper was the first description of a pure language. No I did not say this. Since it is not clear if it is the first pure language or not. >Calling the 1960 paper's subset of Lisp "the original LISP" I have already explained what I meant. I will also add that since the 1960 paper is so called "the original LISP paper", and the paper refers to the LISP implementation and describes a pure core LISP, I called the pure part "the original LISP" meaning the core of LISP in the original LISP paper. The most important part is the meaning and since I have explained what I meant, if you are not satisfied with the wordings, just use a different symbol "XXX LISP" and you will be satisfied. >and disregarding the already-existing implemented Lisp system which the paper acknowledges, No I am not. You seem to be disregarding that a pure LISP can be constructed from the idea in the paper. >as well as McCarthy's previous writing on the subject, is misleading at best. Not true.