2 ms·
Arguments about labels are always tedious and fruitless. They don't advance anybody's understanding of anything important, like the substance of the whatever
by darkpuma 8y ago
Arguments about labels are always tedious and fruitless. They don't advance anybody's understanding of anything important, like the substance of the whatever those labels might apply to. Arguing about whether or not "Lisp" means "Common Lisp" doesn't advance anybody's understanding of Common Lisp.
- delish 8y agoI agree with everything you said. The argument is tedious and fruitless. My point is an empirical one: Programmers of a Certain Age were more likely to use "Lisp" than programmers of other ages.
- kazinator 8y agoThe sentence at the root of this subthread, namely "I do really wish that Guix used Lisp rather than Scheme" isn't an argument about labels.
- darkpuma 8y agoNo, but the terminology of the root was plainly coming from the camp of "Scheme isn't Lisp, Common Lisp is Lisp." The child comment was confused by that peculiar terminology, so I provided context for that terminology in a way that I hoped would head off yet another argument about labels. It was my intent to stop the argument before it began.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kazinator 8y agoThe terminology is troublesome because "Scheme" more specifically determines the language than "Lisp", so "I'd prefer to use Lisp over Scheme" or vice versa is somewhat "apples versus vegetables".
- lispm 8y ago> Arguing about whether or not "Lisp" means "Common Lisp" doesn't advance anybody's understanding of Common Lisp. But not expecting Common Lisp to behave like Scheme helps. The design for the Scheme language is simply different from Common Lisp and thus code looks and behaves differently.