Subject: Re: What should S-expression based languages be called? (was: Re: Why is Scheme not a Lisp?) From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:04:00 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Erik Naggum > Precisely, positions can be close to eachother, but the direction of the > momentum or the heading to the destination may be quite different. What > is so annoying with "Scheme is a (dialect of) Lisp" when published > recently (as opposed to when it was written) is that they imply that Lisp > has moved in the same direction Scheme has, and that is patently _false_. * Bruce Hoult | Lisp can't move in a direction. It just is. Platonic. Pure. Common | Lisp can move in a direction. Sometimes, I wonder what a hang-up looks like. Thank goodness for USENET. But sometimes, I wonder if some people post annoying articles on purpose. Please note that I did not say that Lisp has moved. I argued that it is false that the Scheme freaks imply that that Lisp has moved (in the same direction Scheme has). Please think before you respond next time. Not every reference to "Lisp" is really a reference to "Common Lisp" just because of your hang-up, you see. Sometimes, somebody have thought about what they have said much more than you can imagine. /// -- 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.