2 ms·

OK, you have rules for what is and is not Lisp. Rules different from yours are wrong. Gotcha! I think that the lack of an interactive experience is not necessa

OK, you have rules for what is and is not Lisp. Rules different from yours are wrong. Gotcha! I think that the lack of an interactive experience is not necessarily a deal breaker. We could have a Lisp implementation which compiles to an executable image which doesn't run until uploaded to a target. This could use an existing dialect like Common Lisp or Scheme and be used by Lisp programmers to deploy some of their existing programs. If you were to fix your rules to be more inclusive, it would be more consistent with your diversity rhetoric. (Not saying you should do anything; your rules are your business.)

iLemming 2y ago
> OK, you have rules for what is and is not Lisp. These are not "my rules," I didn't make up this shit. Many renowned computer scientists have spoken about Clojure and at Clojure conferences: Guy Steele, Paul Graham, Matthias Felleisen, Gerald Jay Sussman, Daniel Friedman,... [some names just off the top of my head]. I'm pretty sure, if not all of them, most of them would definitely say "Clojure is a Lisp". So, until someone of that caliber steps onto the stage and tells us differently, that's what I'm calling it.