Talk:BBN LISP - Revision history

Jnc: /* Dialects versus Implementations */ I do not know what to do

2023-06-21T08:27:39Z

‎Dialects versus Implementations: I do not know what to do

Larsbrinkhoff: Categories are hard, let's go shopping.

2023-06-21T05:08:55Z

Categories are hard, let's go shopping.

Jnc: Dialects versus Implementations - I'm a little lost

2023-06-20T20:10:10Z

Dialects versus Implementations - I'm a little lost

New page

==Dialects versus Implementations==

I'm a little lost differentiating between 'dialects' and 'implementations'. At one end of the spectrum, if a language has a clear specification, and two implementations (compilers) implement that specification exactly, then clearly they aren't 'dialects', just 'implementations'. At the other end, with things like BASIC and LISP, different implementations might implement dialects with significant differences.

In some places, like [[Maxc Byte Lisp]], I put it in [[:Category: Language Implementations]]; [[INTERLISP]] got put in both that and [[:Category: LISP Dialects]], since it has aspects of both. (I see you moved [[BBN LISP]] from one to the other - maybe putting it in both would have been more appropriate?) But it's so difficult to decide betwwen those two, in some places. So I don't know how to handle that situation.

Maybe the thing to do is give up on [[:Category: Language Implementations]], and just have 'Dialect' categories? But then there are [[:Category: C Compilers]], etc. For languages which don't really have dialects with large differences, maybe that kind of category name is appropriate?

I think the first step is to get definite names for bottom-level categories (because to change the names of those categories, one has to edit all the articles which are in them). Having done that, the category structure above that is easier to adjust. [[User:Jnc|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc|talk]]) 22:09, 20 June 2023 (CEST)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 I'm a little lost differentiating between 'dialects' and 'implementations'. At one end of the spectrum, if a language has a clear specification, and two implementations (compilers) implement that specification exactly, then clearly they aren't 'dialects', just 'implementations'. At the other end, with things like BASIC and LISP, different implementations might implement dialects with significant differences.
-In some places, like [[Maxc Byte Lisp]], I put it in [[:Category: Language Implementations]]; [[INTERLISP]] got put in both that and [[:Category: LISP Dialects]], since it has aspects of both. (I see you moved [[BBN LISP]] from one to the other - maybe putting it in both would have been more appropriate?) But it's so difficult to decide betwwen those two, in some places. So I don't know how to handle that situation.
+In some places, like [[Maxc Byte Lisp]], I put it in [[:Category: Language Implementations]]; [[INTERLISP]] got put in both that and [[:Category: LISP Dialects]], since it has aspects of both. (I see you moved [[BBN LISP]] from one to the other - maybe putting it in both would have been more appropriate?) But it's so difficult to decide between those two, in some places. So I don't know how to handle that situation.
 Maybe the thing to do is give up on [[:Category: Language Implementations]], and just have 'Dialect' categories? But then there are [[:Category: C Compilers]], etc. For languages which don't really have dialects with large differences, maybe that kind of category name is appropriate?
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 : Yes, I was also considering this '''after''' I changed BBN LISP, and then I started getting second thoughts.  In that particular case, there are three different implementations.  But are they a cohesive dialect?  I'm not sure; probably to some extent.  Similarly, INTERLISP could refer to what was retronymed Interlisp-10, or to the family/dialect as a whole.  Somehow Lisp in particular has a very chequered past with regards to implementations, dialects, families, compilers, interpreters, etc, so it's probably one of the hardest to neatly categorize.
-: ByteLisp is an instruction set that was a target for the INTERLISP compiler.
+: ByteLisp is an instruction set that was a target for the INTERLISP compiler. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff|talk]]) 07:08, 21 June 2023 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:08, 21 June 2023
Line 8:		Line 8:

	I think the first step is to get definite names for bottom-level categories (because to change the names of those categories, one has to edit all the articles which are in them). Having done that, the category structure above that is easier to adjust. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 22:09, 20 June 2023 (CEST)		I think the first step is to get definite names for bottom-level categories (because to change the names of those categories, one has to edit all the articles which are in them). Having done that, the category structure above that is easier to adjust. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 22:09, 20 June 2023 (CEST)
		+
		+	: Yes, I was also considering this '''after''' I changed BBN LISP, and then I started getting second thoughts. In that particular case, there are three different implementations. But are they a cohesive dialect? I'm not sure; probably to some extent. Similarly, INTERLISP could refer to what was retronymed Interlisp-10, or to the family/dialect as a whole. Somehow Lisp in particular has a very chequered past with regards to implementations, dialects, families, compilers, interpreters, etc, so it's probably one of the hardest to neatly categorize.
		+	: ByteLisp is an instruction set that was a target for the INTERLISP compiler.