{
   let {
        {new-lang {find-L++}}
       }
    {
     if {
         and {market-y-p new-lang}
             {lots-of-curly-braces-p new-lang}
        }
        {succeed}
        {error "You need to modernize your language!"}
    }
  }

<defun fact <x>
  <if <= x 0> 1 <* x <fact <1- x>>>>>

(progn
  (set-syntax-from-char #\< #\()
  (set-syntax-from-char #\> #\))
  (set-macro-character #\< (lambda (stream char)
                             (declare (ignore char))
                             (read-delimited-list #\> stream)))
  (set-syntax-from-char #\( #\a)
  (set-syntax-from-char #\) #\a)

  (defun l++-print-cons (*standard-output* cons)
    (write-char #\<)
    (unless (null cons)
      (loop
          (prin1 (car cons))
          (cond
            ((consp (cdr cons))
             (setf cons (cdr cons))
             (write-char #\Space))
            ((not (null (cdr cons)))
             (write-string " . ")
             (prin1 (cdr cons))
             (return))
            (t
             (return)))))
    (write-char #\>))
  (set-pprint-dispatch 'list #'l++-print-cons))

  Well, the other CS entries _were_ written by people who were quite up to
  date on the topics they wrote about.

Standards published by national and international standardization
organizations, OTOH, are sources of definitive knowledge.  So at a
bare minimum I'd expect a conscientious editor to look up current
standards on Lisp, and compare his definition with the definitions he
encounters.  This will also give him pointers to the responsible
working groups (or sub-committees, or whatever the actual technical
entities of the respective organization are called), and so the
mandated contact points for further inquiries.

This is the minimum amount of trouble I'd expect from an editor of --
let's say -- a "computer" encyclopedia.

If that seems like too much trouble to go to for the encyclopedia in
question (which it may well might be), then I would suggest that the
term is not suitable for inclusion in their encyclopedia, and should
hence be dropped.  I actually don't see why a generic encyclopedia
should have entries for particular programming languages, and can't
make do with a generic entry under "programming languages".  But if it
does intend to include such entries, then it better make sure that
they are at least accurate.  Employing some random CS post-graduate to
regurgitate the tales he heard about is not the way to compile
encyclopedias.

It is better to have no entry, than it is to present a misleading
entry.

Regs, Pierre.

  Considering the large number of computer-releated entries in this volume,
  a lot more than I have found in any other encyclopedia of comparable size
  (I went ahead and bought it :), they have made a significant effort to
  fill the need of third-millennium collegiate users.  I think this bodes
  well for an updated entry in a future edition, and I frankly do not quite
  understand the depressingly defeatist attitude of those who think there
  is no use -- a long journey starts with the first step, and if we can get
  at least one modern reference work get it right, maybe others will follow
  in the years to come.

  For purposes of the discussion about the level of accuracy, detail and
  "political party"-like treatment that Lisp got in comparison with other
  languages get, it might be worth looking at the entries for Java and C++:

Java - Modular object-oriented programming lgnauge developed by Sun
    Microsystems in 1995 specifically for the Internet.  Java is based on
    the ida that the same software should run on many different kinds of
    computers, consumer gadgets, and other devices; its code is translated
    according to the needs of the machine on which it is running.  The most
    visible examples of Java software are the interactive programs called
    "applets" that animate sites on the World Wide Web, where Java is a
    standard creative tool.  Java provides an interface to HTML.

C++ - Object-oriented version (see object-oriented programming) of the
    computer programming language C.  Developed by Bjarne Stroustrup of
    Bell Laboratories in the early 1980s, it is a traditional C language
    with added object-oriented capabilities.  C++, along with Java, has
    become popular for developing commercial software packages that
    incorporate multiple interrelated applications.

"Pierre R. Mai" <p...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:87wv1hupul.fsf@orion.bln.pmsf.de...

  Regardless of how widely held the belief, describing _languages_ as
  requring large memory space and executing programs slowly is very low
  quality craftsmanship from a CS professional.  Any CS professional worth
  his salt knows that languages, and especially members of the Lisp family
  past and present, are implemented in many different ways on differnt
  kinds of computers that make such a blanket generalization embarrassing.

| I don't "blame" them at all for echoing an "expert" what else can they
| realistically do?

  They could think a little bit about what it means for a language to take
  up memory space.  It is a very sloppy way to write what they had in mind,
  even to someone who does not know that much about computers and languages.

check
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

hs

--

  You might be surprised to learn that there is a subtle difference between
  a dictionary and an encyclopedia, such as completely different contents,
  despite certain trademarks and words in large print on the dust jacket
  that a not very bright observer may find sufficiently similar to jump to
  wrong conclusions.

Completely unrelated but the October number of CACM contains an
article by Henry Legard with the following fascinating quote: "In
parallel with the development of CASE came the C++ language - a super
set of C, but still a simple language." I'd hate to see something that
man considers a complex language.

A good encyclopedia is likely to have good editors who would welcome
an accurate, well-presented correction, no matter who presents it.

--
--Ed Cashin                     integrit file-verification system:
  ecas...@terry.uga.edu         http://integrit.sourceforge.net/

  One of the more interesting things that have been uncovered by this
  discussion is that nobody has ever even _tried_ to communicate with the
  editors of any existing reference works to update the entries on (Common)
  Lisp from the 1960's version they mostly have today.  Small wonder nobody
  has published anything "better" -- those who could have helped them have
  refrained from doing so.  The "fuss" is about getting to the point where
  the (Common) Lisp communicate can actually talk to these editors.

  I have been reluctant to write something on my own and asked for some
  guidance from those who have already tried and succeeded -- now I know
  that they do not exist.  This has frankly surprised me a bit -- there
  have been enough complaints here about how _unfairly_ Lisp has been
  treated, yet nobody have been angered enough by the unfairness to act.

I don't tend to read encyclopedias, frankly.  The last time I used one
was in high school, in science fiction class, when I found one useful
to provide appropriate and convincing references to actual
documentable incidents of time travel. (I'm not kidding.)  Sometime
subsequent to that, I decided they didn't do a lot of thorough
research and I made a note to not put as much trust in their content
as I had in earlier grades.

Nevertheless, the do exist and the fact that I feel I have generally
outgrown them and/or learned to distrust them is not a proof that they
are not something that should be kept an eye on.

As to the issue of getting to the point of communicating, I have assumed
that those carrying on the conversation here would reach a consensus about
what was required and would make the communication.  If they do not, I
certainly will involve myself.  I'm quite outraged, but I see no reason
to apply infinite force until we're sure simple force will not suffice.
SOMEONE should contact them, and if that doesn't work, we should discuss
the mode of failure (being ignored, explicitly denied credential, etc.)
and figure out how to proceed.

I'm not John McCarthy, nor even any more a J13 member, but if my
credential as an expert in having been Project Editor for ANSI Common
Lisp or ISO ISLISP would be helpful in approaching them, I would be
happy to use it. (I'm quite sure I could round up appropriate other
names to stand with me, if it comes to that.)  But, for
strategic/learning reasons, it seems to me best to hold that until the
second round of contact, and to prefer the first round of contact to
merely apply "truth" as a credential and see how far that gets us.

Of course, this is rather tangential, because we're not talking about
a domain-specific encyclopedia.

Original

LISP - Powerful computer programming language designed for manipulating
    lists of data or symbols rather than processing numerical data, used
    extensively in artificial intelligence applications.  It was designed
    in the 1950s and early 1960s by a group headed by J. McCarthy at MIT.
    Its name derives from "list processor".  Radically different from such
    other programming languages a ALGOL, C, C++, FORTRAN and Pascal, it
    requires large memory space and is slow in executing programs.

New

Lisp - A computer programming language originally designed in the 1950s and
early 1960s by a group headed by J. McCarthy at MIT.  Lisp is an acronym for
List Processing, the conceptual core for the original Lisp implementations.
Heavily adopted for AI (Artificial Intelligence) research and development in
the 1960s and 1970s its use prompted the development of many programming
techniques in wide use today.  Many Lisp dialects were created into the
1980s and then consolidated into the Common Lisp ANSI standard of today.
The main features of Lisp are;  uniform and extensible syntax; its
interactive development model (which differs from the compile-link-test
model of the other Algol like languages); and a rich set of data types.