Since I have to wait for more than an hour to reply in a deep comment level, I will reply here to kbp. >The confusion seems to stem from your insistence on usi

Since I have to wait for more than an hour to reply in a deep comment level, I will reply here to kbp. >The confusion seems to stem from your insistence on using the word "original" to mean the pure Lisp described in the 1960 paper, despite the fact there was Lisp before that. It seems like it's mostly a disagreement about the meaning of the word original; I consider your use misleading. Yes I should have used a different word and I am sorry for making a confusion. After this long discussion about the history of LISP, I can now come up with a better word instead of using "original", and also I have an updated view of the LISP history. >As I said several times, The 1960 paper describes a pure subset of Lisp, I was only disagreeing that it was the original Lisp. Great! >I think we understand each other now. Yes it seems so. >It was nice reading some old papers I hadn't seen before :) Definitely true and thanks for having a very long discussion :)