Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Before you start learning Lisp...

abhishek.geek.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Before you start learning Lisp...

#21

Post by arb »

astine wrote: post #20
frossie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we're at it, the name "LISP" is obsolete. It's reminiscent of variants of the broader lisp family of languages, circa 1980. We're talking about Common Lisp instead, often shortened to "Lisp", being a much more modern language." (Unless the author added that after the OP was submitted)

I'm sorry, I mistated, the author forgat to specify what he meant by 'Lisp' before writting a page and a half on it. He did get around to it near the end of the article when all of the laypeople left confused about Lisp.

I've added a note at the top disambiguating the term too. Thanks for the feedback. :-)

Re: Before you start learning Lisp...

#23

Post by varjag »

abstractbill wrote: post #6
tocomment wrote: post #4

why does it say LISP isn't a functional programming language but Clojure is? Isn't Clojure a dialect of Lisp?

The article was written by someone who seems to believe "Lisp" is synonymous with "Common Lisp" ( We're talking about Common Lisp instead, often shortened to "Lisp" ). So it seems Clojure (and Scheme, Arc, etc) are implicitly excluded by the author.

No, Scheme is Scheme, and Arc is Arc. You don't call Ruby a Python, despite that those languages are much closer than Lisp and Scheme.

Re: Before you start learning Lisp...

#25

Post by dkersten »

varjag wrote: post #23
abstractbill wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article was written by someone who seems to believe "Lisp" is synonymous with "Common Lisp" ( We're talking about Common Lisp instead, often shortened to "Lisp" ). So it seems Clojure (and Scheme, Arc, etc) are implicitly excluded by the author.

No, Scheme is Scheme, and Arc is Arc. You don't call Ruby a Python, despite that those languages are much closer than Lisp and Scheme.

And Common Lisp is Common Lisp. They're still dialects of the mythical Lisp. Was there ever an actual just Lisp? Or was there just dialects, eg ZetaLisp, Emacs Lisp, MIT's Lisp Machine Lisp, etc etc

Re: Before you start learning Lisp...

#26

Post by DrJokepu »

dkersten wrote: post #25
varjag wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Scheme is Scheme, and Arc is Arc. You don't call Ruby a Python, despite that those languages are much closer than Lisp and Scheme.

And Common Lisp is Common Lisp. They're still dialects of the mythical Lisp . Was there ever an actual just Lisp ? Or was there just dialects, eg ZetaLisp, Emacs Lisp, MIT's Lisp Machine Lisp, etc etc

There was an original LISP dialect; a quick Google search / Wikipedia session yielded this memo about a LISP 1.5 compiler written in 1962:

ftp://publications.ai.mit.edu/ai-publications/pdf/AIM-039.pdf

Also there's LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual dated August 17, 1962 which is quite an interesting read: http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/book/LISP%...

Re: Before you start learning Lisp...

#27

Post by dkersten »

DrJokepu wrote: post #26
dkersten wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Common Lisp is Common Lisp. They're still dialects of the mythical Lisp . Was there ever an actual just Lisp ? Or was there just dialects, eg ZetaLisp, Emacs Lisp, MIT's Lisp Machine Lisp, etc etc

There was an original LISP dialect; a quick Google search / Wikipedia session yielded this memo about a LISP 1.5 compiler written in 1962: ftp://publications.ai.mit.edu/ai-publications/pdf/AIM-039.pdf Also there's LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual dated August 17, 1962 which is quite an interesting read: http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/book/LISP%...

Ok, I stand corrected. Thanks for the links, btw, I'll enjoy reading them :-)

Re: Before you start learning Lisp...

#28

Post by philwelch »

varjag wrote: post #23
abstractbill wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article was written by someone who seems to believe "Lisp" is synonymous with "Common Lisp" ( We're talking about Common Lisp instead, often shortened to "Lisp" ). So it seems Clojure (and Scheme, Arc, etc) are implicitly excluded by the author.

No, Scheme is Scheme, and Arc is Arc. You don't call Ruby a Python, despite that those languages are much closer than Lisp and Scheme.

There were dozens of Lisps before Common Lisp, including Scheme. Is there a reason why there can't be any Lisps after it?

Re: Before you start learning Lisp...

#29

Post by varjag »

dkersten wrote: post #25
varjag wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Scheme is Scheme, and Arc is Arc. You don't call Ruby a Python, despite that those languages are much closer than Lisp and Scheme.

And Common Lisp is Common Lisp. They're still dialects of the mythical Lisp . Was there ever an actual just Lisp ? Or was there just dialects, eg ZetaLisp, Emacs Lisp, MIT's Lisp Machine Lisp, etc etc

Common Lisp was a joint effort to make a good, portable, featureful Lisp specification. All the parties you mentioned were on the ANSI standard panel, hence "Common" and hence "Lisp".

Scheme was never a part of that effort and indeed it shouldn't have been, as it is a standalone language with its objectives and different semantics. It also at no point was ever called LISP, it was Scheme from the very first memo. It is extremely uncommon to Schemer to refer to his code as "I programmed it in Lisp", there is certainly its own, formed identity among the users.

LISP itself stems from original McCarthy implementation; its name bears the legacy of 7-bit teletypes of the day. But this point is well elaborated in the write-up we discuss.

Re: Before you start learning Lisp...

#30

Post by garnet7 »

I'm interested in learning Scheme, and keeping my fingers crossed that they can come together and specify some kind of "batteries-included" standard library. Otherwise, I'm afraid I'll only be able to fiddle with Scheme for an hour or two on weekends and get my real work done with one of the "popular" languages (i.e., Perl, Python, etc.).

Yes, I realize PLT has some batteries included but I'd prefer a community standard rather than a one-distro standard (not that I think (or even have much of an idea if) anything is wrong with PLT).

Post reply on HN