6 ms·

> Why is Scheme not a Lisp? Oh god, please no.

expando 12y ago
Why not? It seems interesting to me. I've always called scheme/racket a lisp, and I never knew that anyone felt differently. Does this mean that clojure is also not a lisp?
- icebraining 12y ago
  It's a holy war, like vim vs emacs and tabs vs spaces. Tread carefully. If you want to read more on it, there's a discussion in the Wiki: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IsSchemeLisp http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IsSchemeLisp
- DonHopkins 12y ago
  I thoroughly enjoyed reading Erik Naggum's comments on that holy war thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Naggum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Naggum
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    I was pretty disappointed to see that he got his hands dirty in that discussion.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  That discussion is about as pedantic as a discussion can be. The main point against seems to be "they didn't name it Lisp". From there it goes into weird accusations like that people call Scheme a Lisp to defame Common Lisp (WTF?). They also say stuff like "Lisp and Scheme parted ways" which is just ignorant of the fact that "Lisp" in that context means "Common Lisp" and most people saying "Scheme is a Lisp" are basically talking about languages inspired by McCarthy's Lisp. But instead of making this reasonable counterargument, people start arguing that Scheme has a lot of similarities to Lisp (meaning Common Lisp). And that link is one of the more intelligent debates on the subject. It's a long-running debate and most places I've seen it discussed are even more confused. I just can't be arsed to give a fuck. Usually when I'm talking about Common Lisp I say "Common Lisp" because I value actual clear communication over saving six characters. And when I say "Lisp" I usually mean "languages inspired by McCarthy's Lisp" (which includes Scheme), but it's pretty rare I have anything useful to say about such a broad group of languages.
  - divs1210 12y ago
    That's a whole lot of history, neatly packed.
- aidenn0 12y ago
  If scheme isn't a lisp, then clojure almost certainly isn't. To use more widely known languages: Is C++ a C? What about Java? Javascript? Those languages share a lot of syntax and keywords between them, but they are clearly distinct languages. On the other hand, most people feel comfortable classifying both FORTRAN and C as "in the algol family" while nobody would call either of them an algol. Actually, if you're at all familiar with the history of FORTRAN, you can see how much it has changed, while nobody denies that FORTRAN 2003 is still as much FORTRAN as FORTRAN IV.
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Why has the name Lisp been coöpted to mean Common Lisp?
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  Because people are lazy and say the shorter thing. It's not particularly a bad thing. It's only a problem in this argument because people have no understanding of context and don't understand the meaning of the word "Lisp" in context. It's like arguing about whether English is a Dutch, while claiming that Pennsylvania Dutch is the real Dutch, when in fact both languages have something to do with Dutch (they're all Germanic Languages) but neither one is Dutch. (In this metaphor, Scheme = English, Common Lisp = Pennsylvania Dutch, Dutch = Academic Variations on McCarthy's Lisp, Ancient German = McCarthy's Lisp).
  - divs1210 12y ago
    ..with a brilliant example.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
    I don't think it's that. The thing is that Common Lispers believe Common Lisp to be, well, Common. The Lisp to end all lisps, the one true lisp, the one lisp to unite the community. And some believe there should be no other lisps as they are just fracturing the community. So calling CL Lisp comes down to arrogance.
    - copsarebastards 12y ago
      That may be so. It's a weird stance to take, though. CL has as little in common with McCarthy's Lisp as any of the other variations that descend from McCarthy's Lisp. So at this point it's just a name, and I'm not sure what's to be gained even if CL somehow got everyone to agree they had sole ownership of the name.
      - lispm 12y ago
        > CL has as little in common with McCarthy's Lisp as any of the other variations that descend from McCarthy's Lisp. That's not true. http://www.informatimago.com/develop/lisp/com/informatimago/small-cl-pgms/wang.html http://www.informatimago.com/develop/lisp/com/informatimago/... McCarthy's implementation of Wang's algorithm from 1960. Run's unchanged in Common Lisp, with only very little support code. > CL somehow got everyone to agree they had sole ownership of the name. CL does not have the ownership of the name Lisp. But for many Lisp is like "German", a family of dialects which share literature, speech and an audience. Common Lisp is the main "German" dialect. Others are Emacs Lisp, ISLisp, Eulisp, XLisp, Franz Lisp, ... all those are closely related. Then Lisp is not "Germanic", which for example included English and German. English and German are Germanic languages, but they don't share literature, speech and the audience. Languages like Logo, Clojure, Newlisp and several others are 'lispy'. But they are not in any way compatible to Lisp. Porting a program means a full rewrite and re-architecture.

Why not? It seems interesting to me. I've always called scheme/racket a lisp, and I never knew that anyone felt differently. Does this mean that clojure is also not a lisp?

icebraining 12y ago
It's a holy war, like vim vs emacs and tabs vs spaces. Tread carefully. If you want to read more on it, there's a discussion in the Wiki: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IsSchemeLisp http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IsSchemeLisp
DonHopkins 12y ago
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Erik Naggum's comments on that holy war thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Naggum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Naggum
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  I was pretty disappointed to see that he got his hands dirty in that discussion.
copsarebastards 12y ago
That discussion is about as pedantic as a discussion can be. The main point against seems to be "they didn't name it Lisp". From there it goes into weird accusations like that people call Scheme a Lisp to defame Common Lisp (WTF?). They also say stuff like "Lisp and Scheme parted ways" which is just ignorant of the fact that "Lisp" in that context means "Common Lisp" and most people saying "Scheme is a Lisp" are basically talking about languages inspired by McCarthy's Lisp. But instead of making this reasonable counterargument, people start arguing that Scheme has a lot of similarities to Lisp (meaning Common Lisp). And that link is one of the more intelligent debates on the subject. It's a long-running debate and most places I've seen it discussed are even more confused. I just can't be arsed to give a fuck. Usually when I'm talking about Common Lisp I say "Common Lisp" because I value actual clear communication over saving six characters. And when I say "Lisp" I usually mean "languages inspired by McCarthy's Lisp" (which includes Scheme), but it's pretty rare I have anything useful to say about such a broad group of languages.
- divs1210 12y ago
  That's a whole lot of history, neatly packed.
aidenn0 12y ago
If scheme isn't a lisp, then clojure almost certainly isn't. To use more widely known languages: Is C++ a C? What about Java? Javascript? Those languages share a lot of syntax and keywords between them, but they are clearly distinct languages. On the other hand, most people feel comfortable classifying both FORTRAN and C as "in the algol family" while nobody would call either of them an algol. Actually, if you're at all familiar with the history of FORTRAN, you can see how much it has changed, while nobody denies that FORTRAN 2003 is still as much FORTRAN as FORTRAN IV.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

Why has the name Lisp been coöpted to mean Common Lisp?

copsarebastards 12y ago
Because people are lazy and say the shorter thing. It's not particularly a bad thing. It's only a problem in this argument because people have no understanding of context and don't understand the meaning of the word "Lisp" in context. It's like arguing about whether English is a Dutch, while claiming that Pennsylvania Dutch is the real Dutch, when in fact both languages have something to do with Dutch (they're all Germanic Languages) but neither one is Dutch. (In this metaphor, Scheme = English, Common Lisp = Pennsylvania Dutch, Dutch = Academic Variations on McCarthy's Lisp, Ancient German = McCarthy's Lisp).
- divs1210 12y ago
  ..with a brilliant example.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  I don't think it's that. The thing is that Common Lispers believe Common Lisp to be, well, Common. The Lisp to end all lisps, the one true lisp, the one lisp to unite the community. And some believe there should be no other lisps as they are just fracturing the community. So calling CL Lisp comes down to arrogance.
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    That may be so. It's a weird stance to take, though. CL has as little in common with McCarthy's Lisp as any of the other variations that descend from McCarthy's Lisp. So at this point it's just a name, and I'm not sure what's to be gained even if CL somehow got everyone to agree they had sole ownership of the name.
    - lispm 12y ago
      > CL has as little in common with McCarthy's Lisp as any of the other variations that descend from McCarthy's Lisp. That's not true. http://www.informatimago.com/develop/lisp/com/informatimago/small-cl-pgms/wang.html http://www.informatimago.com/develop/lisp/com/informatimago/... McCarthy's implementation of Wang's algorithm from 1960. Run's unchanged in Common Lisp, with only very little support code. > CL somehow got everyone to agree they had sole ownership of the name. CL does not have the ownership of the name Lisp. But for many Lisp is like "German", a family of dialects which share literature, speech and an audience. Common Lisp is the main "German" dialect. Others are Emacs Lisp, ISLisp, Eulisp, XLisp, Franz Lisp, ... all those are closely related. Then Lisp is not "Germanic", which for example included English and German. English and German are Germanic languages, but they don't share literature, speech and the audience. Languages like Logo, Clojure, Newlisp and several others are 'lispy'. But they are not in any way compatible to Lisp. Porting a program means a full rewrite and re-architecture.