3 ms·

The article was written by someone who seems to believe "Lisp" is synonymous with "Common Lisp" (We're talking about Common Lisp instead, often shortened to "Li

The article was written by someone who seems to believe "Lisp" is synonymous with "Common Lisp" (We're talking about Common Lisp instead, often shortened to "Lisp"). So it seems Clojure (and Scheme, Arc, etc) are implicitly excluded by the author.

varjag 17y ago
No, Scheme is Scheme, and Arc is Arc. You don't call Ruby a Python, despite that those languages are much closer than Lisp and Scheme.
- dkersten 17y ago
  And Common Lisp is Common Lisp. They're still dialects of the mythical Lisp. Was there ever an actual just Lisp? Or was there just dialects, eg ZetaLisp, Emacs Lisp, MIT's Lisp Machine Lisp, etc etc
  - DrJokepu 17y ago
    There was an original LISP dialect; a quick Google search / Wikipedia session yielded this memo about a LISP 1.5 compiler written in 1962: ftp://publications.ai.mit.edu/ai-publications/pdf/AIM-039.pdf Also there's LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual dated August 17, 1962 which is quite an interesting read: http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/book/LISP%201.5%20Programmers%20Manual.pdf http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/book/LISP%...
    - dkersten 17y ago
      Ok, I stand corrected. Thanks for the links, btw, I'll enjoy reading them :-)
  - varjag 17y ago
    Common Lisp was a joint effort to make a good, portable, featureful Lisp specification. All the parties you mentioned were on the ANSI standard panel, hence "Common" and hence "Lisp". Scheme was never a part of that effort and indeed it shouldn't have been, as it is a standalone language with its objectives and different semantics. It also at no point was ever called LISP, it was Scheme from the very first memo. It is extremely uncommon to Schemer to refer to his code as "I programmed it in Lisp", there is certainly its own, formed identity among the users. LISP itself stems from original McCarthy implementation; its name bears the legacy of 7-bit teletypes of the day. But this point is well elaborated in the write-up we discuss.
- philwelch 17y ago
  There were dozens of Lisps before Common Lisp, including Scheme. Is there a reason why there can't be any Lisps after it?

varjag 17y ago

No, Scheme is Scheme, and Arc is Arc. You don't call Ruby a Python, despite that those languages are much closer than Lisp and Scheme.

dkersten 17y ago
And Common Lisp is Common Lisp. They're still dialects of the mythical Lisp. Was there ever an actual just Lisp? Or was there just dialects, eg ZetaLisp, Emacs Lisp, MIT's Lisp Machine Lisp, etc etc
- DrJokepu 17y ago
  There was an original LISP dialect; a quick Google search / Wikipedia session yielded this memo about a LISP 1.5 compiler written in 1962: ftp://publications.ai.mit.edu/ai-publications/pdf/AIM-039.pdf Also there's LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual dated August 17, 1962 which is quite an interesting read: http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/book/LISP%201.5%20Programmers%20Manual.pdf http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/book/LISP%...
  - dkersten 17y ago
    Ok, I stand corrected. Thanks for the links, btw, I'll enjoy reading them :-)
- varjag 17y ago
  Common Lisp was a joint effort to make a good, portable, featureful Lisp specification. All the parties you mentioned were on the ANSI standard panel, hence "Common" and hence "Lisp". Scheme was never a part of that effort and indeed it shouldn't have been, as it is a standalone language with its objectives and different semantics. It also at no point was ever called LISP, it was Scheme from the very first memo. It is extremely uncommon to Schemer to refer to his code as "I programmed it in Lisp", there is certainly its own, formed identity among the users. LISP itself stems from original McCarthy implementation; its name bears the legacy of 7-bit teletypes of the day. But this point is well elaborated in the write-up we discuss.
philwelch 17y ago
There were dozens of Lisps before Common Lisp, including Scheme. Is there a reason why there can't be any Lisps after it?