Subject: Re: What should S-expression based languages be called? (was: Re: Why is Scheme not a Lisp?) From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:36:34 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Christopher Browne | If they so wanted to avoid the perception of association with Lisp, | they obviously didn't do a very good job of writing the standard. It serves a standard well to be accurate about its heritage (which I have pointed out that it is not, ironically). There is no point in talking about it when teaching the language, because those who are learning it are most probably not aware of what the heritage means in the first place -- and if you have paid attention, you will notice that such historical things as language families is not foreign to me, but confused marketing is _the_ issue. I note in passing that the Dylan Reference Manual completely avoids any reference to Lisp. Whatever some propagandists think, this can be used to send them on their way back to comp.lang.dylan. How useful! I note in passing that reading the RnRS documents is not what _I_ would recommend anyone to do who were not ready to understand a lot more than they need to program in it. | After all, after, if what you suggest is true, namely that they intended | dissociation from Lisp, they broke that in the second sentence of the | standard by describing Scheme as a "dialect of the Lisp programming | language." | | Kinda stupid to have the goal of dissociation and then start the standard | by describing how it's an instance of a Lisp... Only if you have only one-bit answers. /// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.