Huh it's orthogonal but basically Clojure is an attempt to answer all those four problems, right? Bypassing the which LISP problem by canonical implementation on top of host VMs (of which there are JVM, CLR, JS, Dart and BEAM), bypassing the spec, bypassing the whole object-oriented problem by impure functional approach, and having a BDFL on the top.
Anyway, back to the main point, thank you for the article. I'll try to play around with Dak later today and see if I can use it to do something fun. Play is better to learn something after all.
Comments
Describing stuff as Lisp-like is a good way to sidestep arguments about "proper" Lisp.
What even is a proper Lisp? http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/lisp-is-not-acceptab...
Huh it's orthogonal but basically Clojure is an attempt to answer all those four problems, right? Bypassing the which LISP problem by canonical implementation on top of host VMs (of which there are JVM, CLR, JS, Dart and BEAM), bypassing the spec, bypassing the whole object-oriented problem by impure functional approach, and having a BDFL on the top.
Anyway, back to the main point, thank you for the article. I'll try to play around with Dak later today and see if I can use it to do something fun. Play is better to learn something after all.
I've enjoyed defending the claim that Perl5 is a Lisp, just instead of being a Lisp-1 or Lisp-2 it's a Lisp-5ish.
Indeed Kent Pitman is on the record[1] as saying that Scheme is not "a Lisp"
1: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.lisp/c/Bj8Hx6mZEYI/m/6...
and now I just miss Erik Naggum and his contributions to lisp discourse.