You're all faggots.
Schemers often appreciate Smalltalk, among other languages.
I like Smalltalk.
>>3
You might have seen this, someone made an VM to run the original Smalltalk-80 Virtual Image
https://github.com/rochus-keller/Smalltalk
>>5
That's Lisp, not Scheme
But Scheme is Lisp but better, it checks out because of the transitivity.
>>7
In case you're not trolling but an authentic ignoramus who should go back to /g/ Scheme is Lisp (Lisp-1). Common Lisp is also Lisp (Lisp-2)
Read this: http://www.dreamsongs.com/Separation.html
CL dorks who adamantly insist on referring to CL as only "Lisp" as though there's no other Lisp upset me as much as SML dorks who adamantly insist on referring to SML as only "ML" as through there's no other ML.
"CL dorks" refer to Lisp as Lisp, because before you were born there were many Lisps: maclisp, interlisp, zetalisp, lisp machine lisp, and they all could run LISP 1.5 code often without any changes. The commonalities of those lisps got standardized into "common" lisp standard, while each individual lisp still retained their particular quirks. What this meant in practice is that most trivial Lisp code could run on any Lisp system in existence, and most non-trivial Lisp code could run on any Lisp system in existence with only minor modifications. That's why for example a community project to restore ELIZA, written as it was for 1.5, from its published paper could run on any modern common lisp system with only a small support prelude.
So when someone would say "it's lisp code", it meant you could load it up on your Genera machine (zetalisp) OR on your spice lisp (common lisp), tweak a few functions, and it'll work. This is not at all the case with scheme, clojure, or myriad of other "guys! i wrote a lisp last weekend!" projects.
I don't know if modern "CL dorks" just cargo cult the terminology, but there's plenty of old timers, who would've gotten confused if you were to tell them "hey, check out my lisp code" and then threw a scheme code at them.
These days details don't matter, everything is about appearances and cliques, so a lot of people get butthurt if you don't let them call their pet project "a lisp", purely because lisp has a brand recognition, community, history, etc. while "joe's programming language" doesn't.
>>11
Write more, your post is interesting.
>>10 And Scheme implementors who want to support the minimum on image/debugging/restarts "because muh C" upset me.
>>11
In the modern era it's usually a cargo cult. If the programmer knows what a genera machine or any other physical lisp machine is, they are not in a cargo cult. Until some "hacker news" makes a column on it and gets picked up by the "hackers". Once it dies down this becomes a good metric again.
>>11
To be clear: I don't call, say, PicoLisp code or Scheme code 'Lisp code' but I don't call CL code 'Lisp code' either. But I suppose I should clarify further.
I don't have a problem with people calling CL 'Lisp' without adjectives — I'm really not that stuck up. What bothers me is when people consider other Lisps to be 'off-topic' and get upset when you refer to anything but CL and its direct descendants as 'Lisp' and I find the sole reason of backwards compatibility to be exceedingly silly. It's no different than saying "you can't call your language Smalltalk unless it's a superset of Smalltalk-80" or "it's not a Forth unless it can run ANS Forth programs."
The following excerpt from WikiWikiWeb gives an example of what I'm talking about:
The purpose of CommonLisp is to unite the Lisp community; portions of SchemeLanguage went into the formulation of CommonLisp. Now that CommonLisp exists (and has existed for many years), continued use of any other Lisp dialect, other than in research or in legacy applications (such as use of EmacsLisp in EmacsEditor), undermines that unity and fractures the community. In other words, CommonLisp ought to subsume further development on other Lisp dialects--including Scheme. Nobody uses MacLisp any more for production code; nobody should use Scheme anymore either. If the Scheme community wishes to develop separately from the Lisp community and continue to be an actively-supported production language, they should do so without enjoying the benefits of association with Lisp, as they aren't contributing anymore. In other words, this argument is saying that "Lisp" is exactly "Common Lisp", anything else is excluded. (And since Common Lisp is unlikely to evolve in any substantial way, this means that Lisp is forever frozen at what CL is now.)
It's definitely not a majority opinion (which is why I opt to call them dorks instead of referring to the entire community) and this kind of gatekeeping certainly isn't exclusive to Lisp. But I've come across this sentiment in several Lisp communities such as comp.lang.lisp, /r/lisp and #lisp on Freenode (which is exclusive to CL; not even ISLISP, which is practically a CL subset, is allowed — ##lisp is the generic Lisp family channel) and I honestly find it to be pointless and annoying.
This is why I said >>10 as an off-hand remark in response to >>7.
>>15
Correction: I meant 'ancestors' when I said 'descendants'.
>>15
I was reading that same WikiWikiWeb page a few days ago, and it was followed by the very true statment, that that's probably the most "fascist" thing they've seen on the site.
>>15,17
I like how you guys managed to turn technical and social disputes into a strong political condemnation, "gatekeeping", "fascist", but it's the other side that's unreasonable.
>>18
Seethe.
>>19
you get used to it after a while, the complete inability of people on the internet to communicate, but it sometimes still gets to you. i posted an elaborate explanation of why things are the way they are, op sort of ignores it, comes back with an unrelated strawman he found on the internet. wouldn't you seethe also?
>>20
I made a jab at a dumbass, you took it seriously and gave a thought out response. I thought I owe you a candid response to explain my dissatisfaction that led to this jab and clarify my phrasing. I don't think I'm the one unable to communicate here. In retrospect, I should've just ignored you.
>>21
We always have an option to ignore each other, but we didn't and here we are.
I don't think your comment addressed the substance of what I said, in fact it doesn't address anything in what I said: "Here's some legitimate reasons to keep the definition narrow" vs "some people on the internet are mean".
I'm saying that there are legitimate reasons for keeping the definition narrow, which has to do with communication. You have, let's call them, shallow lispers, people who are interested in lisp as a broad concept, and then you have specific lispers, that is the ones who are mostly working with LISP 1.5 derived languages. There's less and less of the second kind, so eventually your objection will be resolved on its own, but as of right now the second kind of lisper still happens to manage long established communities.
Your objection is that the second kind of lisper is a gatekeeper for wanting to keep the meaning of lisp narrow inside their long established communities. I'm saying that they are not necessarily doing it just because they are assholes, but because they are not interested in various subjects, that might fall under a broader "lisp" umbrella.
I think some particular phrases that you use indicate that you don't actually believe in personal ownership of space, and I've seen that argument before. "#lisp belongs to the general lisper community, all communities must adopt inclusive policies" etc. This might be our fundamental disagreement, which we're not going to resolve here. I'll continue to defend my spaces, and you'll continue trying to invade them through underhanded strategies of calling people like me fascists or gatekeepers :)
>>22
I see we'll have to agree to disagree because I don't see this argument leading to anything. Goodbye.
>>23
See you on the barricades! :p
>>18
I don't really care, but even the most boring and stupid definition of a fascist mindset would ring when reading:
The purpose of CommonLisp is to unite the Lisp community
Now that CommonLisp exists [...] continued use of any other Lisp dialect [...] undermines that unity and fractures the community.
If the Scheme community wishes to develop separately from the Lisp community and continue to be an actively-supported production language, they should do so without enjoying the benefits of association with Lisp
>>25
you might be an american, if...
>>26
...you get upset that people use different languages?
>>26
...you think watered-down rugby for little girls, with body armor and breaks every few seconds is a manly sport.
>>26
...you tried to reject your parents' philosophy, but ended up with protestantism and imperialism anyway.
>>26
...you're $100k in student debt, so you're getting your moneys worth by being the smart guy on reddit.
>>26
...you are incapable of the full mental effort required to pronounce 'aluminium'.
now I see how you got banned from that forum lol
>>32
Which forum banned whom?
>>26
...you care about the destruction of your ``historical'' artefacts when you virtually have no history. Unlike Mesopotamia which you destroyed and pillaged.
>>31
Where's the source for this one, I'm interested.