That is true, but to engage in a bit of semiotics: those cores are hardly the most appealing part of Lisp for most of the uses cases it's found. It certainly was one way to enable the interactivity and homoiconicty and metacircularity, but, as Clojure and Janet demonstrate, there are a lot of other aspects of Lisp that have value. And while one could (and some have, IIRC) built a Lisp on those minimal data structures that doesn't have parens, most people associate Lips with them being in the strange place.
Cons/car/cdr are far less important, IMO, than eval.
Read, on the other hand, is also technically missing from Janet, and I personally don't mind a great deal, but I could see that being argued.
One of the inventions of McCarthy (and team) was that EVAL can be defined in the core language itself (!) and thus serve as a relatively simple model of computation. Thus the particular EVAL is important, not that source code can be executed at runtime by some api call to execute code.
That's part of the core of the language.
Sure: Many other aspects from Lisp can be found also in Lisp-derived languages and other languages. Like all or some of runtime code loading, symbolic expressions, using symbolic expressions to encode source code, saving and starting heap images, garbage collection, managed memory, source level interpreters/debuggers, self-hosted compilers, read-eval-print-loops, macros, fexprs, integrated interactive development environments, ...
Comments
That is true, but to engage in a bit of semiotics: those cores are hardly the most appealing part of Lisp for most of the uses cases it's found. It certainly was one way to enable the interactivity and homoiconicty and metacircularity, but, as Clojure and Janet demonstrate, there are a lot of other aspects of Lisp that have value. And while one could (and some have, IIRC) built a Lisp on those minimal data structures that doesn't have parens, most people associate Lips with them being in the strange place.
Cons/car/cdr are far less important, IMO, than eval.
Read, on the other hand, is also technically missing from Janet, and I personally don't mind a great deal, but I could see that being argued.
One of the inventions of McCarthy (and team) was that EVAL can be defined in the core language itself (!) and thus serve as a relatively simple model of computation. Thus the particular EVAL is important, not that source code can be executed at runtime by some api call to execute code.
That's part of the core of the language.
Sure: Many other aspects from Lisp can be found also in Lisp-derived languages and other languages. Like all or some of runtime code loading, symbolic expressions, using symbolic expressions to encode source code, saving and starting heap images, garbage collection, managed memory, source level interpreters/debuggers, self-hosted compilers, read-eval-print-loops, macros, fexprs, integrated interactive development environments, ...