4 ms·
I think at some point we should clarify why we mean by Lisp. I see a lot of mention of Clojure, while most people seem to assume that Lisp == Common Lisp. I fee
by Zababa 5y ago
I think at some point we should clarify why we mean by Lisp. I see a lot of mention of Clojure, while most people seem to assume that Lisp == Common Lisp. I feel like talking about Common Lisp, Racket, Scheme, Clojure at the same time while putting them all under the "Lisp" umbrella seem to be a bit pointless when we're talking about languages. It's like mentionning JS in a conversation about C because "JS is a language with a C-style syntax and macros (with Babel)". That's true but it's a totally different languages, and that's without even mentionning the different implementations of C and JS.
- delegate 5y agoI look at it as an intersection between the feature sets of Common Lisp, Clojure, Scheme, etc. In other words - the most basic features of these languages that are common - S-expressions, data is code is data, REPL-driven development, etc
- Zababa 5y agoThat's a nice way of looking at it, but that means we can't really talk about libraries, performance, dev tooling and stuff like that.
- dunefox 5y ago> It's like mentionning JS in a conversation about C It's not. It's like mentioning C++ in a conversation about OOP which is why Lisp is the appropriate umbrella term. For me, CL means Common Lisp.