3 ms·
> My point was that "Lisp", the original implementation line, died in the 1960s You said 'language'. It did not die at all. The original Lisp and the code writ
by lispm 7y ago
> My point was that "Lisp", the original implementation line, died in the 1960s
You said 'language'. It did not die at all. The original Lisp and the code written in it was moved through the decades. There is even Lisp code from the 60s which was moved through all the implementations / Lisp evolutions over time:
Lisp I -> a bunch of Lisp 1.5 implementations -> Lisp 1.6 / PDP-6 Lisp -> Maclisp -> Zetalisp, ...
Example: Macsyma was based on code coming from Lisp 1.5 and moved through several generations of Lisp.
- eesmith 7y agoI said "that language stopped in the 1960s while other Lisp dialects". I thought it was clear that I was referring to the specific implementation which died with Lisp 1.5. Because "Raku" refers to a specific implementation name in the Raku-like languages, of which Perl 6 is one. And the Raku evangelist seems to argue that it was incorrect to describe a Raku evangelist as "a Perl 6" evangelist. I was drawing a parallel. If a modern Lisp system can be referred to as a Lisp, then why can't Raku be referred to as a Perl 6? Now, I'm perfectly fine with saying this is a sociological question, and that the members of the group get to decide their name. I also think there are limits to that framework. For one, it leads to gatekeeping. If a Scheme or Clojure users says they are using a language in the Lisp family .... I think you see the issue.