Subject: Re: I don't understand Lisp
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1998/09/16
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Jeff Dalton <>
| Did you mean to say "Scheme is not a dialect of Lisp" rather than "not a
| dialect of Common Lisp"?  In any case, it's unlikely that anyone has ever
| claimed Scheme was a dialect of Common Lisp.

  but what _is_ the Lisp that both Scheme and Common Lisp are dialects of?
  if there is no such thing (and I don't think there is, anymore, although
  there might well have been in the distant past), then it is not useful to
  talk about it.  "dialect" is not a mark of independent quality in my view
  and there's a weird interaction between "dialect of Lisp" and the effect
  the mark has on various languages that claim it: one language may try to
  capitalize on the work of another ("we're _all_ dialects"), yet it may be
  used to reduce the value of the work of another at the same time ("we're
  all _merely_ dialects").

* Erik Naggum <>
| some Lispers (well, at least one, but he's also a Schemer) will insist
| very strongly that Common Lisp is not the only Lisp to consider.

* Jeff Dalton <>
| Well, I'll certainly insist that Common Lisp is not the only Lisp.

  the two words "to consider" is essential to what I wrote above.  I know
  that you go ballistic every time somebody forgets to mention the myriads
  of other Lisps that you want us to remember, and that's why I attempted
  to be very specific.  I'm annoyed that you appear to continue unimpeded
  with your standard rhetoric.

| So, all things considered, the "dialect of Lisp" way of talking is
| probably more trouble than it's worth.

  I agree, including your argumentation.

-- is about my spam protection scheme and how
  to guarantee that you reach me.  in brief: if you reply to a news article
  of mine, be sure to include an In-Reply-To or References header with the
  message-ID of that message in it.  otherwise, you need to read that page.