4 ms·
> "Lisp" has to do with the little design details, not superficial resemblance. Would you consider LISP 1.5, MacLISP, InterLISP, etc. to be Lisps? They differ
by osteele 8y ago
> "Lisp" has to do with the little design details, not superficial resemblance.
Would you consider LISP 1.5, MacLISP, InterLISP, etc. to be Lisps? They differ on different design details than Scheme does, but they differ significantly.
Related: does Lisp these days or in your community just mean Common Lisp?
- lispm 8y agoCommon Lisp mostly superseded Lisp 1.5 and Maclisp. Interlisp went away - Xerox included Common Lisp into Interlisp-D and later sold the product to a tiny vendor, renaming the product to Medley. Most Interlisp users were switching to Common Lisp - including Xerox. Xerox even was a driving force behind the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) and its Meta-Object Protocol. Xerox paid for much of the research that went into it. Parts of CLOS were based on ideas from LOOPS for Interlisp-D. The first actual CLOS implementation was called Portable Common Loops (PCL) and was actually developed largely by/at Xerox PARC. Xerox PARC also developed a bunch of research software in Common Lisp. I would count Emacs Lisp, ISLisp, and some similar languages as mainline Lisps. Scheme is now called Scheme. Racket was renamed from DrScheme (IIRC), to avoid being directly associated with Scheme - since it is now its own language.
- kazinator 8y ago> Racket was renamed from DrScheme (IIRC), to avoid being directly associated with Scheme. See: a laudably reasonable behavior.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- soegaard 8y agohttp://racket-lang.org/new-name.html http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html
- pmarin 8y agoRacket was PLT Scheme. DRSheme was It's IDE now called DRRacket