 |
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: Duane Rettig <du...@franz.com>
Date: 03 Sep 2003 12:14:49 -0700
Local: Wed, Sep 3 2003 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: why Common Lisp is not a lisp
Kent M Pitman <pit...@world.std.com> writes:
[ ... ] I really like your diagram: > +----------------------+ However, I wouldn't consider Dylan a Scheme. It has a somewhat different > | lisp language family | > +----------------------+ > / | > +--------------------------+ +----------------------------------+ > | lisp language | | scheme language | > +--------------------------+ +----------------------------------+ > | | | | : | | : > | Elisp ISLISP Eulisp T(EA) : RnRS IEEE/ANSI : > | dialects : Scheme Scheme : > | : dialects (influence) > | +- - - (influence)- - - - - - - - - - + | | | | : > | : > | | +----------------+ > | | dylan language | > CL dialects +----------------+ > | | \ > CLTL CLTL2 ANSI CL philosophy than either Scheme or Lisp, although it drew heavily from both Scheme and Common Lisp for its functionality (and other C-like languages for its syntax). It would probably be better placed at the same level as your second-level "lisp language" and "scheme language" boxes, with influence lines between it and both Scheme and CL. There are also several dialects of Dylan. ... although I don't really much _care_; if you disagree with my > In support of my claim that it's reasonable to both include and exclude So are you saying that Scheme is an animal? > scheme as a lisp in this way, I have to recite (via paraphrase--it's been > a long time) a cute thing that the late Bill Martin of MIT taught us in > his computational linguistics class... > - The world is divided into animals, vegetables and minerals. :-) Actually, taking your analogy, it would be CL that is the animal... > I think mostly that discussions like this are useless if they are just I agree completely. I'd _even_ rather see discussion on call/cc (because > vehicles to alienate one another. The constructive goal I seek by > commenting at all is to say that there are both structural relationships > and structural differences between certain languages and dialects, and > that those borders explain why programmers and programs pass easily > across some boundaries and not across others. Saying "we're all one > big happy family" may be chummy, but it merely destroys the opporunity > to explain real, observed effects in a way that enlightens. that is real discussion on a technical issue) than to continue seeing pointless discussion about whether or not Scheme is a Lisp, or whether or not Common Lisp is a Lisp, where no minds are changed and the argument remains just that - an argument. -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||