4 ms·

Asking a CL advocate whether Scheme is a Lisp is like asking a plantation owner whether his slaves are human beings. The page's second argument for why Scheme

by edw 16y ago

Asking a CL advocate whether Scheme is a Lisp is like asking a plantation owner whether his slaves are human beings. The page's second argument for why Scheme is not a Lisp ridiculous. Basically: CL is meant to be the Lisp, therefore Scheme should just go away. As an ardent, strident even, Schemer, it is my reasoned opinion that only a mentally disabled person would today design a LISP-2; the idea that function names occupy a namespace distinct from other objects makes less sense than Perl's syntax. CL and Scheme occupy, by design, I am comfortable saying, two distinct roles in the Lisp world: CL is the New Jersey Lisp whereas Scheme is the MIT Lisp. That said, there's a new New Jersey Lisp in town, and it wipes the floor with CL. It's called Clojure and it's a LISP-1 for kicking ass and taking names.

bguthrie 16y ago
This analogy is too extreme. Slavery should not enter into a programming language debate unless you are actually discussing forced human bondage. Otherwise, I agree.
- edw 16y ago
  Geesh, It's not like I mentioned Hitler. My point, which we are not talking about, because we're currently dealing with your commission of the spurious-fallacy fallacy, is that when one asks questions of someone whose identity depends on an acceptance of the conditions that are the subject of one's questions, you're not likely to get answers that aren't grounded in an acceptance of those conditions.
- pstuart 16y ago
  What about java development?
ohyes 16y ago
"Asking a CL advocate whether Scheme is a Lisp is like asking a plantation owner whether his slaves are human beings." That is a horribly inept analogy. My guess is that most CL guys would say 'yes, it is.' "It is my reasoned opinion that only a mentally disabled person would today design a LISP-2." A brilliant and insightful analysis. Butter side up or butter side down? Clojure is nice, but so far I haven't found a way in which it 'wipes the floor' with CL.
- edw 16y ago
  "A brilliant and insightful analysis." I asked one of my CL hacker friends about the L1/L2 question, and he waved has hands a lot and said that Richard Gabriel said that L2s were better. I read the essay that he alluded to (but didn't actually read, apparently) and it read as a compelling argument FOR L1s until the end: [Quoting from the paper, available at http://www.nhplace.com/kent/Papers/Technical-Issues.html http://www.nhplace.com/kent/Papers/Technical-Issues.html] The bulk of arguments that focus on clean semantics and notational simplicity tend to favor uniting the function and value namespaces. In spite of this, there are those who hold strongly to a belief that a two-namespace system affords useful expressive power that they are unwilling to do without. In the end, practical considerations favor the status quo for Common Lisp. There is a large number of improvements beyond a single namespace that could be made to Common Lisp that would clean it up and simplify it. We feel that the time for such radical changes to Common Lisp passed… [End quote] So I have a CL expert, writing for the standard committee, arguing that all things considered, L2s suck, but we're stuck with keeping CL an L2. So that, in addition to my own experience with CL, Scheme, and other languages, is the basis of my informed opinion.
  - edw 16y ago
    I want to know who just down-voted this comment and what the basis for doing so was.
  - ohyes 16y ago
    In that paper he is not arguing that L2s suck. It is a much better analysis than that. "The bulk of arguments that focus on clean semantics and notational simplicity tend to favor uniting the function and value namespaces." These are the first 3 points about notational simplicity and referential transparency. "In spite of this, there are those who hold strongly to a belief that a two-namespace system affords useful expressive power that they are unwilling to do without." These points are contested by some. (overall it seems a matter of aesthetics, objectively single namespace is more elegant). "In the end, practical considerations favor the status quo for Common Lisp." Practical considerations, being the other 10 or so points about implementing and using it relatively efficiently, and using macros. Some of which are a toss up, others are in favor of one or the other... "There is a large number of improvements beyond a single namespace that could be made to Common Lisp that would clean it up and simplify it. We feel that the time for such radical changes to Common Lisp passed, and it would be the job of future Lisp designers to take lessons from Common Lisp and Scheme to produce an improved Lisp." (Clojure) I'm okay with your informed opinion, what I have a problem with it is you putting it in such a stark relief with little to no stated basis for the opinion.
ericbb 16y ago
Isn't "New Jersey Lisp" a contradiction in terms?

by edw 16y ago

bguthrie 16y ago

This analogy is too extreme. Slavery should not enter into a programming language debate unless you are actually discussing forced human bondage. Otherwise, I agree.

edw 16y ago
Geesh, It's not like I mentioned Hitler. My point, which we are not talking about, because we're currently dealing with your commission of the spurious-fallacy fallacy, is that when one asks questions of someone whose identity depends on an acceptance of the conditions that are the subject of one's questions, you're not likely to get answers that aren't grounded in an acceptance of those conditions.
pstuart 16y ago
What about java development?

ohyes 16y ago

"Asking a CL advocate whether Scheme is a Lisp is like asking a plantation owner whether his slaves are human beings." That is a horribly inept analogy. My guess is that most CL guys would say 'yes, it is.' "It is my reasoned opinion that only a mentally disabled person would today design a LISP-2." A brilliant and insightful analysis. Butter side up or butter side down? Clojure is nice, but so far I haven't found a way in which it 'wipes the floor' with CL.

edw 16y ago
"A brilliant and insightful analysis." I asked one of my CL hacker friends about the L1/L2 question, and he waved has hands a lot and said that Richard Gabriel said that L2s were better. I read the essay that he alluded to (but didn't actually read, apparently) and it read as a compelling argument FOR L1s until the end: [Quoting from the paper, available at http://www.nhplace.com/kent/Papers/Technical-Issues.html http://www.nhplace.com/kent/Papers/Technical-Issues.html] The bulk of arguments that focus on clean semantics and notational simplicity tend to favor uniting the function and value namespaces. In spite of this, there are those who hold strongly to a belief that a two-namespace system affords useful expressive power that they are unwilling to do without. In the end, practical considerations favor the status quo for Common Lisp. There is a large number of improvements beyond a single namespace that could be made to Common Lisp that would clean it up and simplify it. We feel that the time for such radical changes to Common Lisp passed… [End quote] So I have a CL expert, writing for the standard committee, arguing that all things considered, L2s suck, but we're stuck with keeping CL an L2. So that, in addition to my own experience with CL, Scheme, and other languages, is the basis of my informed opinion.
- edw 16y ago
  I want to know who just down-voted this comment and what the basis for doing so was.
- ohyes 16y ago
  In that paper he is not arguing that L2s suck. It is a much better analysis than that. "The bulk of arguments that focus on clean semantics and notational simplicity tend to favor uniting the function and value namespaces." These are the first 3 points about notational simplicity and referential transparency. "In spite of this, there are those who hold strongly to a belief that a two-namespace system affords useful expressive power that they are unwilling to do without." These points are contested by some. (overall it seems a matter of aesthetics, objectively single namespace is more elegant). "In the end, practical considerations favor the status quo for Common Lisp." Practical considerations, being the other 10 or so points about implementing and using it relatively efficiently, and using macros. Some of which are a toss up, others are in favor of one or the other... "There is a large number of improvements beyond a single namespace that could be made to Common Lisp that would clean it up and simplify it. We feel that the time for such radical changes to Common Lisp passed, and it would be the job of future Lisp designers to take lessons from Common Lisp and Scheme to produce an improved Lisp." (Clojure) I'm okay with your informed opinion, what I have a problem with it is you putting it in such a stark relief with little to no stated basis for the opinion.

ericbb 16y ago

Isn't "New Jersey Lisp" a contradiction in terms?