Clojure people don't know anything else, and say things like [I'm paraphrasing typical rhetoric]: "Lisp provides a functional paradigm based on operations on immutable sequences represented by persistant data structures".
Their use of Lisp is not big enough to count as English mainstream. Neither is any other use of Lisp in computing.
English mainstream "Lisp" is the speech artifact.
When the following groups use the word "Lisp", they all mean something else: (1) hackers working in some classic Lisp; (2) Clojurians; (3) speech therapists.
The Clojurian "Lisp" does not include anywhere near everything from the classic "Lisp", and vice versa.
The Clojurian "Lisp" is mainly just a synonym for Clojure, and in a broader sense refers to Clojure-like dialects like ClojureScript, Babashka and such.
Clojurians use the word "Lisp" because the Clojure website and documentation tells them to. If the Clojure website and documentation spelled it out that Clojure takes some ideas from Lisp, but isn't Lisp, then they wouldn't do that.
The author of Clojure despises classic Lisp and Lisp hackers, so he perpetrated that on purpose, and gleefully enjoyed it when some Lisp programmers become indignant about it.
Problem is, it does cause confusion. It's not as simple as these people have their "Lisp", these others have theirs, because the usage is in a very similar area. We see situations like people not wanting to try a classic Lisp because they think it's a functional language for manipulating immutable data structures due to either their exposure to Clojure or to Clojure-related advocacy. That could work the other way; people who don't like classic Lisps (e.g. passing familiarity from school years) may be reluctant to try Clojure thinking it's the same, since it calls itself Lisp!
In the Perl community, calling a certain different, new language Perl 6 created confusion. So the creators did a kind thing and invented a different name: Raku. This is because they didn't despise the Perl user base; they liked Perl users and wanted to be helpful.
> Clojure people don't know anything else, and say things like [I'm paraphrasing typical rhetoric]: "Lisp provides a functional paradigm based on operations on immutable sequences represented by persistant data structures".
Wow, you've gotten really specific with your straw man argument here.
I'm sure you can find some wacko out there who specifically is saying that's what a Lisp is, but that's certainly not what I'm saying a Lisp is. The Clojure front page says:
"Clojure is a dialect of Lisp, and shares with Lisp the code-as-data philosophy and a powerful macro system."
Maybe try responding to a more mainstream opinion like that instead of your straw man.
> Clojurians use the word "Lisp" because the Clojure website and documentation tells them to. If the Clojure website and documentation spelled it out that Clojure takes some ideas from Lisp, but isn't Lisp, then they wouldn't do that.
Wow, life must be really hard if you're triggered this easily.
Alternative hypothesis: Clojure docs refer to Clojure as a Lisp because it is obviously a Lisp, not because they're picking on poor persecuted Lispers. You're not a martyr. Nobody in the Clojure community cares about your feelings enough to try to hurt them. In fact, for the most part, the Clojure community doesn't know you exist.
If you can find a spot where Clojure website or docs orders Clojurians to refer to Clojure as a Lisp, I'll be pretty surprised. My guess is, all it does is refer to Clojure as a Lisp. It's not about you, so maybe try and cope by not taking it personally.
> The author of Clojure despises classic Lisp and Lisp hackers, so he perpetrated that on purpose, and gleefully enjoyed it when some Lisp programmers become indignant about it.
I very much doubt Rich Hickey "despises classic Lisp and Lisp hackers", given he wrote a language which you have to admit is at least heavily based on Lisp.
I won't speak for whether Rich Hickey feels glee because I don't make shit up like you are, but I feel glee when pedants get triggered, and I think that is pretty justified. :)
To be clear, I don't hate Common Lisp programmers--I like Common Lisp and most of the people who write it.
Rich Hickey did say that a lot of Lisp communities are really toxic and he wanted to distance the Clojure community from that and... yeah, you're being a great example of his point.
> We see situations like people not wanting to try a classic Lisp because they think it's a functional language for manipulating immutable data structures due to either their exposure to Clojure or to Clojure-related advocacy.
Maybe people don't want to try a classic Lisp because they start exploring the possibility and all the communities are polluted with gatekeeping pedants.
And let's be explicit: is Scheme a Lisp? I know you're just parrotting Naggum's arguments against Scheme, so let's be clear: this isn't about Clojure, this is part of a gatekeeping culture that started before Clojure existed.
Their use of Lisp is not big enough to count as English mainstream. Neither is any other use of Lisp in computing.
English mainstream "Lisp" is the speech artifact.
When the following groups use the word "Lisp", they all mean something else: (1) hackers working in some classic Lisp; (2) Clojurians; (3) speech therapists.
The Clojurian "Lisp" does not include anywhere near everything from the classic "Lisp", and vice versa.
The Clojurian "Lisp" is mainly just a synonym for Clojure, and in a broader sense refers to Clojure-like dialects like ClojureScript, Babashka and such.
Clojurians use the word "Lisp" because the Clojure website and documentation tells them to. If the Clojure website and documentation spelled it out that Clojure takes some ideas from Lisp, but isn't Lisp, then they wouldn't do that.
The author of Clojure despises classic Lisp and Lisp hackers, so he perpetrated that on purpose, and gleefully enjoyed it when some Lisp programmers become indignant about it.
Problem is, it does cause confusion. It's not as simple as these people have their "Lisp", these others have theirs, because the usage is in a very similar area. We see situations like people not wanting to try a classic Lisp because they think it's a functional language for manipulating immutable data structures due to either their exposure to Clojure or to Clojure-related advocacy. That could work the other way; people who don't like classic Lisps (e.g. passing familiarity from school years) may be reluctant to try Clojure thinking it's the same, since it calls itself Lisp!
In the Perl community, calling a certain different, new language Perl 6 created confusion. So the creators did a kind thing and invented a different name: Raku. This is because they didn't despise the Perl user base; they liked Perl users and wanted to be helpful.