Does it matter what is a Lisp? We can answer it like this.
Yes, it matters in the following way. New languages being touted as Lisps, which deviate from the Lisp characteristics, cause confusion.
For instance, nowadays you read comments like: "I tried Lisp for a while but couldn't get used to doing everything using immutable sequences, nice as the pure functional paradigm might be conceptually". Obviously, that person is referring to Clojure, and since Clojure is promoted as a Lisp, they believe that all that is true of Clojure is true of Lisp.
People believe such misleading statements which is then harmful to the real Lisps. Someone out there will avoid using Common Lisp believing that they would be required to do everything using immutable sequences or hashes.
I believe I've said this to you before in the context of Scheme: the Common Lisp community doesn't get the final vote as to what is or is not a Lisp.
As to your example, it's at least as likely that someone would be turned off Lisp by using Common Lisp, and someone else might suggest Clojure as a remedy to whatever issues they had with it.
I don't know what else do they want. I feel like this is some kind of "programming language racism" and "Lisp eugenics" bullcrap.
Yes, Clojure is different than Common Lisp, but it is important to recognize that diversity in languages and their ecosystems can be valuable, and differences don't diminish the contributions or identity of a language within the broader Lisp family. Why can't we instead borrow good ideas from Clojure and implement them in CL and vice-versa?
I love Lisps. I love Common Lisp and Clojure, Fennel and even Emacs Lisp. Whenever I need to jump between Javascript and Typescript or even between different frameworks, I feel like I'm programming in different languages. That doesn't happen with Lisp. I can relatively easily switch between Clojure, Clojurescript, Clojure-Dart, Fennel, Emacs Lisp and CL and still feel like I'm programming using the same language. Completely different platforms - same language. I really don't understand what this fuzz is about. Clojure is a Lisp.
OK, you have rules for what is and is not Lisp. Rules different from yours are wrong. Gotcha!
I think that the lack of an interactive experience is not necessarily a deal breaker. We could have a Lisp implementation which compiles to an executable image which doesn't run until uploaded to a target. This could use an existing dialect like Common Lisp or Scheme and be used by Lisp programmers to deploy some of their existing programs.
If you were to fix your rules to be more inclusive, it would be more consistent with your diversity rhetoric. (Not saying you should do anything; your rules are your business.)
These are not "my rules," I didn't make up this shit. Many renowned computer scientists have spoken about Clojure and at Clojure conferences: Guy Steele, Paul Graham, Matthias Felleisen, Gerald Jay Sussman, Daniel Friedman,... [some names just off the top of my head]. I'm pretty sure, if not all of them, most of them would definitely say "Clojure is a Lisp". So, until someone of that caliber steps onto the stage and tells us differently, that's what I'm calling it.
People already say CL is functional, whether they've used Clojure or not. It's a common misconception. The problem is most people on Hackernews are talking about languages they've barely used.
Incidentally it's MORE confusing for people to say Clojure is not a LISP.
Just because there are other sources of misconceptions about Lisp doesn't justify Clojure being one.
Clojure could help by emphasizing that it's a Lisp-like language, which is different from other Lisps. On the clojure.org home page, there is this paragraph:
Clojure is a dialect of Lisp, and shares with Lisp the code-as-data philosophy and a powerful macro system. Clojure is predominantly a functional programming language, and features a rich set of immutable, persistent data structures. [...]
It would be helpful if this said something like:
Clojure is a dialect of Lisp. Though sharing with other dialects the code-as-data philosophy and a powerful macro system, it is very different from the original LISP of John MacCarthy, and the subsequent mainstream languages like Common Lisp and Scheme that are in contemporary use. Unlike these, Clojure is predominantly a functional programming language, and features a rich set of immutable, persistent data structures. [...]
Helpful to who? A home page is for conveying essential information. This paragraph is something you wrote to satisfy something pedantic that most people don't agree with.
Obviously the author considers Clojure a lisp and I dare say Rich Hickey knows what he's talking about.
I brought up the functional point because it's ridiculous to say Clojure is confusing people into thinking all lisps are functional. There's no reason to think that
You're saying Clojure is a lisp here, but every other comment of yours says the opposite. That's what I'm responding to.
>> This paragraph is something you wrote
> Yes?
I don't know why you're chopping my sentences in half to have fake points to respond to. I was saying the paragraph was written by you and for you. It is not helpful for beginners trying to get into a language to read random names and other languages thrown at them, and be told "It's like this other language you don't know about, but not quite." That's how you get people clicking away from your site.
It's just a weird hill to die on to say there's a problem with calling Clojure a LISP because it will "confuse" people. It doesn't confuse people that know what LISP is. Beginners are always going to be confused, that's par for the course.
Yes, it matters in the following way. New languages being touted as Lisps, which deviate from the Lisp characteristics, cause confusion.
For instance, nowadays you read comments like: "I tried Lisp for a while but couldn't get used to doing everything using immutable sequences, nice as the pure functional paradigm might be conceptually". Obviously, that person is referring to Clojure, and since Clojure is promoted as a Lisp, they believe that all that is true of Clojure is true of Lisp.
People believe such misleading statements which is then harmful to the real Lisps. Someone out there will avoid using Common Lisp believing that they would be required to do everything using immutable sequences or hashes.