3 ms·

Technically, Racket is a Scheme dialect not a LISP one.

by sigzero 14y ago

argv_empty 14y ago
a Scheme dialect not a LISP one I feel a bit confused about the distinction you're making. Didn't Guy Steele refer to Scheme as a LISP dialect?
- spdegabrielle 14y ago
  All scheme dialects are lisps, but Racket and the various scheme implementations are Lisp-1's, with the same namespace for functions and variables, while Common LISP is a lisp-2, which have separate function and variable namespaces. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp-1_vs._Lisp-2#The_function_namespace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp-1_vs._Lisp-2#The_function_...
klibertp 14y ago
I was using the word "Lisp" to mean "all languages with s-expr based syntax" and not as an abbreviation of Common Lisp. I even explicitly noted that: "Until a few (3?) years ago it was a ... Scheme". But I don't know the Lisp/lisps history that well, did I use the term incorrectly?
pnathan 14y ago
Actually... Racket is a Scheme dialect which is a language in the Lisp family. Much like Clojure, Kernel, and newLISP are languages in the Lisp family.
- klibertp 14y ago
  That's somewhat debatable - I mean whether Racket is a dialect of Scheme. There's a page here: http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html that states that Racket is a descendant of Scheme, but not that it's a dialect. Also here: http://stackoverflow.com/a/3358638/280995 http://stackoverflow.com/a/3358638/280995 someone says that Racket is not a Scheme (I think therefore not a dialect of Scheme either) because it's not backwards compatible and doesn't fully implement any of the Scheme standards. On the other hand Racket includes a scheme language; but it's merely one of many possibilities and with default installation comes also algol60 implementation, yet obviously we don't say that Racket is a dialect of Algol. Anyway, I think that day-to-day programming in Racket is sufficiently different from Scheme's that it (Racket) deserves to stand on it's own. Saying it's a descendant of Scheme is obviously ok, but saying it's a dialect of Scheme is a bit too much, I think.

Technically, Racket is a Scheme dialect not a LISP one.

by sigzero 14y ago

Technically, Racket is a Scheme dialect not a LISP one.

a Scheme dialect not a LISP one I feel a bit confused about the distinction you're making. Didn't Guy Steele refer to Scheme as a LISP dialect?

spdegabrielle 14y ago
All scheme dialects are lisps, but Racket and the various scheme implementations are Lisp-1's, with the same namespace for functions and variables, while Common LISP is a lisp-2, which have separate function and variable namespaces. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp-1_vs._Lisp-2#The_function_namespace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp-1_vs._Lisp-2#The_function_...

klibertp 14y ago

I was using the word "Lisp" to mean "all languages with s-expr based syntax" and not as an abbreviation of Common Lisp. I even explicitly noted that: "Until a few (3?) years ago it was a ... Scheme". But I don't know the Lisp/lisps history that well, did I use the term incorrectly?

pnathan 14y ago

Actually... Racket is a Scheme dialect which is a language in the Lisp family. Much like Clojure, Kernel, and newLISP are languages in the Lisp family.

klibertp 14y ago
That's somewhat debatable - I mean whether Racket is a dialect of Scheme. There's a page here: http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html that states that Racket is a descendant of Scheme, but not that it's a dialect. Also here: http://stackoverflow.com/a/3358638/280995 http://stackoverflow.com/a/3358638/280995 someone says that Racket is not a Scheme (I think therefore not a dialect of Scheme either) because it's not backwards compatible and doesn't fully implement any of the Scheme standards. On the other hand Racket includes a scheme language; but it's merely one of many possibilities and with default installation comes also algol60 implementation, yet obviously we don't say that Racket is a dialect of Algol. Anyway, I think that day-to-day programming in Racket is sufficiently different from Scheme's that it (Racket) deserves to stand on it's own. Saying it's a descendant of Scheme is obviously ok, but saying it's a dialect of Scheme is a bit too much, I think.