- From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:38:44 +0000
- To: semantic-web@w3.org, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
I would suggest that saying "Lisp" is a little like saying "C/C++/Java" -- the syntax and many of the ideas are the same, but there are some very real differences in fundamental principles (e.g. Lisp-1/Lisp-2 in the "Lisp" family). One doesn't program in "C/C++/Java", and one doesn't program in "Lisp", either. Wilbur is a Common Lisp SW toolkit. The counter-argument is that "Lisp" is a common shorthand for "Common Lisp", but it's not something that strikes me as correct in the context of a document intended for public reference, particularly when there may be Scheme implementations of Semantic Web libraries[1]. -R [1] the only mention I remember is <http://www.mindswap.org/~katz/Talks/2003/01/XSLT-Project/slide8 -0.html>, so this should be read as "may be (in future)". On Feb 8, 2005, at 17:50, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> First, "Lisp" is not an actual programming language per se. You >> should say >> "Common Lisp" (this is the ANSI X3J13 Standard). There are other >> dialects, >> such as "Scheme", but I haven't seen any RDF software for those. > > Come again? I would say that Lisp is just as much an actual > programming > language as C++ or Java. Yes, there are different dialects of Lisp > but so > are there (or were there) different dialects of Java, just ask Sun and > Microsoft. Many other programming languages have distinct dialects; I > would guess that there are significant dialects of almost every widely > used > programming languages.
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2005 18:39:33 UTC