| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the NewLISP article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This article seems to have been written by a newlisp fan... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.207.212 (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
NPOV, definitely. 24.85.131.247 (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely irrelevant Lisp, while I think it's fine for this page to exist, it's shocking to see it's listed on the Lisp timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.144.120 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The timeline of Lisp dialects in the "history" section seems unnecessary and distracting. The main dialects that are mentioned in the article text (other than newLISP itself) are Common Lisp and Scheme. I can understand why it might be nice to see when those were created in relation to newLISP, but I can't understand why the gigantic timeline box can't be replaced with a brief mention of when (and maybe how) Common Lisp and Scheme were created. The complicated timeline would be a much better fit for an article about the evolution of Lisp generally. I'd have deleted it from this page already if it weren't such a large and noticeable part of the page. It's not worth starting an edit war over, but if no one cares, I might end up getting rid of it. Lingvaristo (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)