3 ms·
It's confusing: Is the article saying that: 1. Scheme is not Common Lisp ? 2. Scheme is not Lisp ? 3. Scheme is not a Lisp ? For the #1, everyone understands
by d0m 16y ago
It's confusing: Is the article saying that:
1. Scheme is not Common Lisp ?
2. Scheme is not Lisp ?
3. Scheme is not a Lisp ?
For the #1, everyone understands that Common Lisp is a different programming language than Scheme.
For the #3, it is clear that Scheme is a Lisp.. where Lisp, here, means the Lisp family. (Read, cons, car, macro system, etc etc)
For the #2, this is where it can get a bit blurry as it depends of what we mean by Lisp. Do we mean all the dialect who decided to unit themselves in Common Lisp? If so, Scheme is not Lisp. Do we mean a lisp dialect? So, Scheme is Lisp. It's just confusing because of the word lisp who is being used in all possible ways.
But, Scheme is a lisp and Scheme is not Common Lisp. Whether Scheme is Lisp, it depends of your meaning of Lisp.. So, unless you take the time to clearly define what you mean by lisp, it doesn't worth all the argumentation.
- RyanMcGreal 16y agoAs a ContentCreationWiki (ahem), it is saying all these things and more.
- silentbicycle 16y agoExactly the same argument is continuously happening about OOP, because the terms themselves are fuzzy and people argue past each other. I think "Scheme is a Lisp dialect" is clearer. "Does Scheme have enough Lisp-iness?" avoids the semantic trap of "is", but in doing so, shows how vague the question is.