is rebol an acceptable lisp

[1/3] from: rasmussen::bryan::gmail::com at: 21-Apr-2007 19:25

Hi, There was a big blog brouhaha recently as to if Ruby was an acceptable LISP, and then steve yegge argued that lisp was not an acceptable lisp http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/lisp-is-not-acceptable-lisp.html , Rebol has always struck me as sort of lisp-y so anyone have any arguments for Rebol as an acceptable lisp or opinions on where it fails?

[2/3] from: carl::cybercraft::co::nz at: 22-Apr-2007 9:15

On Saturday, 21-April-2007 at 19:25:14 bryan rasmussen wrote,

>Hi, >There was a big blog brouhaha recently as to if Ruby was an acceptable

<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>

>arguments for Rebol as an acceptable lisp or opinions on where it >fails?

Before the question can be asked, should't we first determine if Rebol's an acceptable Rebol?

[3/3] from: tim-johnsons::web::com at: 22-Apr-2007 7:24

On Saturday 21 April 2007 17:25, bryan rasmussen wrote:

> Hi, > There was a big blog brouhaha recently as to if Ruby was an acceptable

<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>

> arguments for Rebol as an acceptable lisp or opinions on where it > fails?

:-) Better to ask the Common Lisp community if rebol is an acceptable lisp. Given the diatribes I've seen written about NewLisp by CL folks, I don't expect the CL people would consider rebol acceptable. But then, should we care? tim -- Tim Johnson <tim-johnsons-web.com> Palmer, Alaska, USA

Notes

Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted