From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!news-hub.siol.net!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!newsfeed.kpnqwest.at!nslave.kpnqwest.net!nloc1.kpnqwest.net!nloc.kpnqwest.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!nreader2.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Why is Scheme not a Lisp? References: <87g0352zk0.fsf@photino.sid.rice.edu> Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3224964836971279@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 13 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 23:33:46 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@KPNQwest.no X-Trace: nreader2.kpnqwest.net 1015976026 193.71.199.50 (Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:33:46 MET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:33:46 MET Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:28687 * Dorai Sitaram | I'll admit I don't want those epithets any more than the next guy, Rahul, | but I find I cannot honestly alter my opinion that Scheme is a Lisp. But what is this "Lisp" that Scheme is? I maintain that it is a concept evacuated by evolllution. What is left in this concept for you? Please remember that you have to accomodate D*lan users who argue the same way Scheme users do about the supposed Lisp nature of their pet language. /// -- 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.