Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "B. Pym" <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: on racket and other Lisps
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 23:39:30 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <v335jg$8pci$1@dont-email.me>
References: <87h6juklf3.fsf@yaxenu.org> <bbnepi1ir89f3t7ck6lbspn3uqns10jk56@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 01:39:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f602e386ecaccd5eca901d418dfe446e";
	logging-data="288146"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1kNV6jAy+plSxJDv43T8Z"
User-Agent: XanaNews/1.18.1.6
Cancel-Lock: sha1:N8AwgFoBcUV7drbUd4rZNJ7w0n4=
Bytes: 4411

On 1/4/2024, George Neuner wrote:

> Racket is derived from Scheme (which also is NOT Lisp).


> Racket evolved from PLT Scheme - which WAS a Scheme.

That's not even a proper sentence.

Better:

Racket evolved from PLT Scheme, which was a Scheme.


Didier Verna:

> The European Lisp Symposium is a premier forum for the
> discussion and dissemination of all aspects of design,
> implementation, and application of any of the Lisp dialects,
> including Common Lisp, Scheme, Emacs Lisp, Clojure, Racket,
> ACL2, AutoLisp, ISLISP, Dylan, SKILL, Hy, Shen, Carp, Janet,
> uLisp, Picolisp, Gamelisp, TXR, and so on.


Thomas Bushnell wrote:

> > The first post to comp.lang.lisp was in November of 1986; _Common
> > Lisp, The Language_ was published in 1984.
> 
> Oh, that's just an artifact of the Great Renaming, which was 1986-7.
> comp.lang.lisp is the new name of the old net.lang.lisp.  The first
> message was there can be found at
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=net.lang.lisp&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as
> _mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=10&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=1982&selm=anews.Aucb
> arpa.997
> 
> And is dated 1982-03-27 23:56:29 PST.
> 
> It's by John Foderaro.  The first sentence is:
> 
> "The net.lang.lisp newsgroup is for the discussion of any and all lisp
> dialects."

The following code snippet runs under both Gauche Scheme and
SBCL, and the output is identical:

(let* ((step1 2)
       (step2 (cons (* step1 1000) 47)))
  (do ((i 1 (+ i step1))
       (j 40 (+ j (case (mod i 3)
                    ((0 1) (car step2))
                    ((2) (cdr step2)))))
       (sum 0 (+ sum (cond ((= 0 (mod j 2)) j)
                           ((= 3 i) 500)
                           ('else (* i 2.125))))))
    ((> i 22) (values sum j))))

 ===>
36664.375
16181

Does this tend to prove that Scheme is not a Lisp?


Paul Graham, May 2001:

A hacker's language is terse and hackable. Common Lisp is not.

The good news is, it's not Lisp that sucks, but Common Lisp.


Paul Graham:

I consider Loop one of the worst flaws in CL, and an example
to be borne in mind by both macro writers and language designers.


From: John Foderaro <jkf@unspamx.franz.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: the "loop" macro
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:51:26 -0700

> I'm not trying to join a debate on loop.  I just wanted to present
> the other side of [the issue so that] the intelligent people can
> then weigh the arguments on both sides.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that loop can be fixed either by adding
> parenthesis or coming up with ways of indenting it to make it
> understandable.  It's a lost cause.
> 
> ...
> 
> Another great example from kmp:
> 
> === from kmp
> 
> For example, you might think
>  (loop with i = (random 100) for x from 1 to 10 do (print (list i x)))
> and
>  (loop for  i = (random 100) for x from 1 to 10 do (print (list i x)))
> meant the same in English, [but they don't do the same thing in loop]
> 
> === end kmp
> 
> loop lulls you into thinking that you understand the program since
> you understand English.   Make no mistake about it, loop is its
> own language.  If you use it you condem everyone who reads the
> code to also learn the loop language.

Those who program in CL (COBOL-Like) are using the Loop
language, which is not a dialect of Lisp.  Furthermore, they
are forcing those who read their code to learn the Loop
language.

Let's just say that Scheme is a better Lisp
than CL (COBOL-Like) is.