1. Hans,
   
   I have this book:
   
   Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manul 1.5
   John McCarthy et. al. 2nd Edition
   MIT Press. 1965.
   
   A lot has happened in the 39 odd years since this book was published. Lisp has undergone standardization, and, nowdays, when anyone refers to Lisp, they are referring to ANSI Common Lisp. ANSI Common Lisp includes, among other things, the specification of an object system, an integrated condition system, and over 900 standard forms.
   
   There are 5 commercial vendors and 5 opensource projects that adhere to the specification. If it's not ANSI Common Lisp, it is not Lisp - it's something else.
   
   I don't mean to pounce on you; it's just that the you seem to have some misconceptions about the language. Why don't you try linking to a well-know site such as:
   
   http://www.alu.org (Association of Lisp Users)
   
   instead of the fringish sites that you have listed now.
   
     posted by Vinodh at 08:21:56 AM on February 15, 2004  
2. Sorry Hans,
   
   I didn't see your lisp section before posting my last comment. I think your Lisp interpreter is a good idea.
   
   Incidentally, did you know that this feeling.....this "I should try writing a lisp interpreter" feeling.... is so common that there's a book just for people like you?
   
   It's called Lisp in Small Pieces by Christian Queinnec.
   
   Have you read it? If you haven't, it will save you A LOT of time.
   
   Vinodh
     posted by Vinodh at 08:35:04 AM on February 15, 2004  
3. Hmm. Well, when I refer to "Lisp", I usually mean "a Lisp-like language". In the wider sense of the word, anything that implements certain core principles (S-expressions, order of evaluation rules, etc) is "a Lisp". In that sense, Arc is a Lisp, Goo is a Lisp, Scheme is a Lisp, etc. And ANSI Common Lisp is just another Lisp. So is Emacs Lisp. :)
   
   Right now I am not interested in a specific dialect, but rather in the properties and possibilities of the core language itself, and the various forms it might take. I'm also interested in writing a Lisp interpreter, that's why some of the "fringe" sites are appealing. The ALU site, on the other hand, has nothing that thrills me.
     posted by Hans at 09:14:58 AM on February 15, 2004  
4. Lisp in Small Pieces? No, I don't know that book. I'll look for it, thanks.
     posted by Hans at 09:16:17 AM on February 15, 2004  
5. Actually, any computer scientist worth his salt should give in to that urge and write a small, complete, Lisp interpreter in C or some low-level language, just to get a feel for the issues involved.
   
   Yes, the Lisp in Small Pieces book is great!
     posted by Chris Ryland at 01:35:46 PM on February 19, 2004