Not Lisp again (2009)

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by Jach on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @05:14PM (#14250677)

Is Python a LISP? Is JavaScript a LISP? Is Java a LISP? What do you mean by LISP, by its core principles? What does a different set of core principles look like that lends itself to a different family? I threw in my vague classification above: sexps and macros. But you can have macros without sexps, and sexps without macros (lots of "toy lisp interpreters" do that), are they LISPs? Lastly one wonders why we don't go calling all these C-like languages ALGOLs. What do you gain by trying to separate from other ALGOLs?

Or less extremely, why don't we consider Python and Ruby to be the same family, or Java and C#? Those pairs are arguably more similar than the pair of Common Lisp and Scheme.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by jhbadger on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @10:02PM (#14252451)

Is Picolisp a Lisp? Is Newlisp a Lisp? Is Emacs Lisp a Lisp? Maybe it's because I first learned programming in the 1980s in BASIC, but I'm pretty used to the idea of programming languages having dialects. Apple ][s, Commodore 64s, and Atari 800s all supposedly were programmable in BASIC, but it didn't mean you could take a program written on one and expect to run it without changes on another.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by icc97 on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @05:04AM (#14254082)

Surely that's the whole point - it's a dialect, so it has the same core but not 100% so you have to translate some of it to get to the other.

The dialects of Dutch in Belgium contain completely different words and phrases - but the core is still Dutch.

But for large parts of the speech they are recognisably similar.

So I'd say yes all the lisps you mentioned are dialects of Lisp. You can't run one directly in the other, but they are reconisably similar programming constructs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by icc97 on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @10:22AM (#14255860)

Sorry - I think I was just proving your point...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by dragonwriter on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:08PM (#14251938)

> Lastly one wonders why we don't go calling all these C-like languages ALGOLs.

Referring to the broad Algol-family isn't uncommon (well, at least, I do it quite a bit.)

> Or less extremely, why don't we consider Python and Ruby to be the same family, or Java and C#? Those pairs are arguably more similar than the pair of Common Lisp and Scheme.

Java and C# are frequently described as being part of a single close language family (much closer than the broad Algol-family; sometimes in an intermediate-breadth family that also includes ), and Ruby and Python are much less similar than Scheme and Common Lisp.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by lacampbell on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @07:40PM (#14251741)

Lastly one wonders why we don't go calling all these C-like languages ALGOLs.

We sometimes do though, don't we? Not that terminology, but I often see the people talking about "curly brace languages" or "C/C++/Java/C#".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by Jach on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:43PM (#14252128)

Sure, we see there's a grouping, and might identify it when trying to create a cluster, but it's not as pervasive as the Lisp Family meme. When Clojure came out, it was advertised as "a Lisp" (not "Lisp", but "a Lisp"). When Go came out, it wasn't advertised as "an ALGOL", or "a curly brace language". What makes so many programmers want to associate only good qualities with this floaty abstraction of "Lisp" (that isn't simply Common Lisp) such that the arguments over how Lispy Clojure/Scheme/EmacsLisp/whatever inevitably keep happening, such that things can advertise as "a Lisp" and get attention despite not having some pretty core Common Lisp functionality? The only other language I see something similar to that is with Python. Go programmers say it's like programming Python but loads faster and with type security, Nim programmers say it's like programming Python but loads faster and with type security, I may have even heard something similar from an OCaml user once, but you look at either of them and they're both missing key Pythonic features.

Edit: In hindsight at the end of the day I should have been more careful with the "Scheme is not Lisp" (at least I didn't say "Scheme is not a Lisp") comment...I'm only continuing these threads because I read the original submission pretty close to when it was posted and back then I only knew a bit of SICP, tried enough Lisp to duplicate some SICP examples, and was frustrated with the Lisp-2 syntax along with what I perceived as a REPL freakout on any error so I put Lisp aside. It would have been helpful for someone to tell me "Scheme is not Lisp" back then and get me to actually explore all that Common Lisp has to offer.

[ Parent | on HN ]