Skip to content

Comment on One Major Difference Between Clojure and Common Lispparent

Comments

Some people (including someone who worked on the CL standard) opined Scheme is not a Lisp: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.lisp/Bj8Hx...

In any discussion involving Common Lisp, there will be the opinion that "Clojure is not a Lisp" without (in my view) providing sufficient context for this clearly confusing statement.

(FWIW, I call Clojure a Lisp. It is clearly in the Lisp tradition, not to mention more technical things like: code-is-data, serious REPL, accurate numbers like 10.00000000000000001M. I don't think "Lisp" should be reserved for mainly incremental improvements on an old movement.)

Code-is-data, serious REPL, accurate numbers

Like Prolog or Julia.

That’s not a quote. You capitalized "Code-is-data" as if it were starting its own sentence. Had you quoted the whole sentence, your response would've seemed more like a non-sequitur.

In any case, there is no definition of even "chair". (Which partitions the world into chair and not-chair. Simply imagine a continuum between a particular chair morphing into a not-chair; where exactly does it stop being a chair?) So I'm unconcerned about edge-cases, where a language is actually in a fuzzy part of that continuum. Not to mention those amusing blogposts claiming "Javascript is a Lisp!" which maybe aren't objectively true but inspiring.

Julia is arguably a Lisp too. Add first class functions to the mix.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.