A Lisp without mandatory tail recursion elimination is not a Lisp at all.
Name:
Anonymous2015-10-11 4:44
>>7 The only "Lisp" to have this is Scheme, which isn't a Lisp. All Lisps before and after Lisp 1.5 did not have mandatory tail recursion elimination.
Name:
Anonymous2015-10-11 7:08
>>8 Scheme is an enhanced Lisp. McCarthy's Lisp was an old, lame mule, Scheme is a beautiful stallion that wins all the races. Anything that came before Scheme is hardly worth even discussing outside of a museum, much less calling a Lisp. Meanwhile Common notLisp is a vile heresy. They split the church over trivialities, and then used their freedom to throw massive orgies with scat and dog fucking. Common notLisp and all it's promoters, including that slimy Paul Graham will crushed and the people brought back into the light.
One world, one standard, one Lisp.
Name:
Anonymous2015-10-11 8:09
>>9 fuck off and take your hygienic macros with you
Name:
The Ugly Truth2015-10-11 8:23
Common Lisp is Lisp. Scheme is Lisp. Clojure is not a Lisp.
Name:
Anonymous2015-10-11 8:23
>>9 i actualy kind of agree with this. maybe im biased a bit by how fucking horrible the people in #lisp are but #scheme isn't any better.
>>32 I keep asking them that but they never respond.
Name:
Anonymous2015-10-14 5:20
>>33 The two responses you'll see in /prog/ are: * It's not Lisp all the way down * Lists are not the prime data structure in Clojure but one of an assortment of data structures
Name:
Anonymous2015-10-14 7:07
>>34 It has literal syntax for commonly used data structures, so what? If you have a problem with that then why don't you have a problem with Common Lisp's support for string literals?
Name:
Anonymous2015-10-14 10:20
Tupac Shakur had a lisp. Tupac Shakur had a lisp. Tupac Shakur had a lisp. Tupac Shakur had a lisp.
If you can port Macsyma (or the open source version Maxima) to it, without mostly rewriting it, then I would call it Lisp. Macsyma has its roots in the Lisps of the 60s and 70s. It has been ported to various Lisp dialects, including Franz Lisp and Common Lisp. It should be possible to port it to ISLisp.
Most of these language will have 'Lisp' as part of its name. Naming your language 'Lisp' indicates that it firmly stands in the tradition of McCarthy's Lisp 1 and Lisp 1.5.
If that's not possible, then it might be a language influenced by Lisp or in some wider family of Lisp. That's nothing bad, but I would not name it Lisp and I would call it 'Lisp derived', 'Lisp influenced' or whatever.
Languages like Scheme and especially many Scheme implementations share a lot with this main line of Lisps. But code sharing is mostly not possible.
Newer languages like 'Newlisp' (sic!) and Clojure are fully incompatible. Code sharing is not possible and programs need to be completely rewritten and even re-architectured to run in those. Similar Javascript, R, Julia, and a bunch of other languages, which can be seen as 'influenced' by Lisp. Javascript for example via Scheme. Imagine a version of 'Land of Lisp' for those languages: the code would need to be rewritten and re-architectured
Name:
Anonymous2015-10-15 3:02
If I have to struggle to make it run Lisp programs, then it is not a Lisp.
If Lisp is only a vague philosophy, then it is practically useless.
I tend to prefer to think in terms of code and working systems. Ultimately Lisp is for writing and using software which can be shared, passed around and reused.
I prefer to get away from the abstract, to a level, where we talk about software written in Lisp, not about principles and no shared software. For me Lisp is not a category of programming languages, which share some abstract principles in various incompatible forms. For me Lisp is a family of programming languages who can share or evolve code. Sure we have learned a bit and Lisp today does not look exactly like Lisp in 1960, but we were not throwing away our Lisp (code and implementations), we were refining and improving it - rewriting were necessary.
Name:
Anonymous2015-10-15 3:03
There are several Lisp programs which have been moved through the decades. Even more complex ones than Maxima. Axiom is an example. We have seen Common Lisp versions of Reduce, which was written in Standard Lisp and then in Portable Standard Lisp. Many programs written in Maclisp, Franz Lisp or Zetalisp have been ported to Common Lisp. Even software from Interlisp ended up in Common Lisp. Object systems had been written for several Lisp dialects. The LOOP macro had one source file for several years for Maclisp, Zetalisp, NIL, and Common Lisp. Spice Lisp was coming from Maclisp similarity and evolved into Common Lisp ... CMUCL...
With very little support, we can even run Lisp 1.5 code from McCarty's publications in Common Lisp.
Name:
Anonymous2015-10-16 14:43
A nice thing about porting lisp code from one implementation from another is some implementation supported language constructs can be created with macros, or at least provide wrapper syntax which translates specific bodies of code from one syntax to another.