6 ms·

More like a very primitive Toy Lisp interpreter.

• bjoli 8y ago
  I thought so as well. Nobody would call a python-like language "a python". I understand that the balkanisation of lisp is responsible for the fact that anything s-expr based is called a lisp. But, common lisp and scheme are actual, specified languages.
  • coldtea 8y ago
    >Nobody would call a python-like language "a python" Unlike Python, Lisp is not "batteries included". The original and standard definition of Lisp is the handful of special forms in McCarthy's paper. Dev didn't say they made a Common Lisp -- just a Lisp.
    • stevelosh 8y ago
      > Dev didn't say they made a Common Lisp -- just a Lisp. The first line in the README after the title is: > A Common Lisp Interpreter Built in COBOL.
      • coldtea 8y ago
        True that, though Common Lisp interpreter is not full Common Lisp e.g. "Common Lisp + its tons of standard libs" -- just "interpreter able to parse Common Lisp".
        • lispm 8y ago
          See 'language subsets' in the Common Lisp standard. http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/01_g.htm http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/01_g.h... Roughly: A language would be a subset of Common Lisp, when all programs in that language are valid standard Common Lisp programs.
          • coldtea 8y ago
            He's a fair cop.
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
    • lispm 8y ago
      McCarthy and his team published a lot of stuff. As for Python, Lisp was defined together with a reference implementation. See the Lisp 1 programmer's manual from 1960: http://history.siam.org/sup/Fox_1960_LISP.pdf http://history.siam.org/sup/Fox_1960_LISP.pdf This was then expanded into Lisp 1.5: http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/book/LISP%201.5%20Programmers%20Manual.pdf http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/book/LISP%...
    • bjoli 8y ago
      Common Lisp is "batteries included", and the dev really claimed to have made a common lisp.