<story><title>NewLisp</title><url>http://www.newlisp.org/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>kazinator</author><text>From a Lisp POV, the only thing wrong with NewLisp is the name.&lt;p&gt;It flouts McCarthy&amp;#x27;s wish that no language be called just Lisp. Well, okay, it&amp;#x27;s not literally called Lisp; it has the &amp;quot;New&amp;quot; in front. On the surface, it seems to be sticking to the letter of the wish. Does it conform to the &lt;i&gt;spirit&lt;/i&gt;, though? Is a common English adjective enough? Is &amp;quot;New&amp;quot; a sufficient qualifier?&lt;p&gt;The mere prefixing of &amp;quot;New&amp;quot; looks like it&amp;#x27;s claiming to be a new version of something that is just Lisp, unqualified. A &amp;quot;New Lisp&amp;quot; is plausibly something that was &amp;quot;Lisp&amp;quot; before, and was then enhanced to create a new version derived from &amp;quot;Lisp&amp;quot;. Lots of projects get rewritten, or otherwise revampd and called &amp;quot;New Whatever&amp;quot;. But NewLisp certainly has no such lineage.&lt;p&gt;One historic dialect was called NIL which stood for &amp;quot;New Implementation of Lisp&amp;quot;. But it went by the name NIL, with the acronym just being an explanation for that name (as far as I can tell).&lt;p&gt;Change the arrogant name, and you will not hear another criticism from Lisp programmers. Make it LutzLisp or whatever. It doesn&amp;#x27;t matter what it is if it is called LutzLisp; it&amp;#x27;s not that type of thing that&amp;#x27;s claiming to be a new, improved version of Lisp.&lt;p&gt;Breaking, or skirting a sacrosanct rule is now how you play along in the broad Lisp family.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kbutler</author><text>Well, okay, it&amp;#x27;s not literally called Lisp; it has the &amp;quot;Common&amp;quot; in front. On the surface, it seems to be sticking to the letter of the wish. Does it conform to the spirit, though? Is a common English adjective enough? Is &amp;quot;Common&amp;quot; a sufficient qualifier?&lt;p&gt;Yes. Yes it is.&lt;p&gt;(&amp;quot;new&amp;quot; is more common than &amp;quot;common&amp;quot;, but not incredibly so: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;books.google.com&amp;#x2F;ngrams&amp;#x2F;graph?content=common%2Cnew&amp;amp;year_start=1800&amp;amp;year_end=2000&amp;amp;corpus=15&amp;amp;smoothing=3&amp;amp;share=&amp;amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccommon%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cnew%3B%2Cc0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;books.google.com&amp;#x2F;ngrams&amp;#x2F;graph?content=common%2Cnew&amp;amp;y...&lt;/a&gt;)</text></comment>
<story><title>NewLisp</title><url>http://www.newlisp.org/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>kazinator</author><text>From a Lisp POV, the only thing wrong with NewLisp is the name.&lt;p&gt;It flouts McCarthy&amp;#x27;s wish that no language be called just Lisp. Well, okay, it&amp;#x27;s not literally called Lisp; it has the &amp;quot;New&amp;quot; in front. On the surface, it seems to be sticking to the letter of the wish. Does it conform to the &lt;i&gt;spirit&lt;/i&gt;, though? Is a common English adjective enough? Is &amp;quot;New&amp;quot; a sufficient qualifier?&lt;p&gt;The mere prefixing of &amp;quot;New&amp;quot; looks like it&amp;#x27;s claiming to be a new version of something that is just Lisp, unqualified. A &amp;quot;New Lisp&amp;quot; is plausibly something that was &amp;quot;Lisp&amp;quot; before, and was then enhanced to create a new version derived from &amp;quot;Lisp&amp;quot;. Lots of projects get rewritten, or otherwise revampd and called &amp;quot;New Whatever&amp;quot;. But NewLisp certainly has no such lineage.&lt;p&gt;One historic dialect was called NIL which stood for &amp;quot;New Implementation of Lisp&amp;quot;. But it went by the name NIL, with the acronym just being an explanation for that name (as far as I can tell).&lt;p&gt;Change the arrogant name, and you will not hear another criticism from Lisp programmers. Make it LutzLisp or whatever. It doesn&amp;#x27;t matter what it is if it is called LutzLisp; it&amp;#x27;s not that type of thing that&amp;#x27;s claiming to be a new, improved version of Lisp.&lt;p&gt;Breaking, or skirting a sacrosanct rule is now how you play along in the broad Lisp family.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>coldtea</author><text>&amp;gt;&lt;i&gt;Change the arrogant name, and you will not hear another criticism from Lisp programmers.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think anyone else cares for that, or even went that far in their syllogism anyway.</text></comment>