dear ········@aol.com (DvdAvins),
Excellent analysis! (see attached below)
By the way, both Erik and Kent would no longer bluntly say "Scheme is not a
dialect of Lisp". Xah have pricked their conscience.
An important discovery in this thread is that quite a few Common Lispers
HATE Schemers to death. I knew the two groups don't get along, but have not
observed the degree of hatred exhibited here. Xah made a sapient remark that
in reality Scheme might have helped Common Lisp's existence.
Perhaps, someone like to start a new debate on "does Scheme help Common Lisp
in the market?". I would think very much so. Can someone define the debate
topic more precisely? Let's grope for facts.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
> From: ········@aol.com (DvdAvins)
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
> Date: 01 Mar 2001 23:02:27 GMT
> Subject: Re: Is Scheme a `Lisp'?
>
> The way people refer to languages, you can't say* that when Scheme was
> created,
> it was a Lisp, but because Lisp has evolved it isn't anymore. You might say
> that it isn't a modern Lisp, but Erik and Kent go beyond that. I understand
> the
> marketing reasons, but unless you want to change the categorization paradigm
> implicit in the way English (and probably German, Finnish, etc.) handles
> language names, the solution must lie elsewhere.
>
> Beowulf was written in an English. This post is written in Modern English.
>
> * Well, you can say anything you want. But not if you want to truthfully use
> words with cocsnsusual meanings.