Is ECMAScript really a dialect of Lisp?

Question

A friend of mine drew my attention the welcome message of 4th European Lisp Symposium:

... implementation and application of any of the Lisp dialect

Answer 1

It's not. It's got a lot of functional roots, but so do plenty of other non-lisp languages nowadays, as you pointed out.

Lisps have one remaining characteristic that make them lisps, which is that lisp code is written in terms of lisp data structures (homoiconicity). This is what enables lisps powerful macro system, and why it looks so bizzare to non-lispers. A function call is just a list, where the first element in the list is the name of the function.

Since lisp code is just lisp data, it's possible to do some extremely powerful stuff with metaprogramming, that just can't be done in other languages. Many lisps, even modern ones like clojure, are largely implemented in themselves as a set of macros.

Answer 2

I think that ECMAScript is a dialect of LISP in the same sense that English is a dialect of French. There are commonalities, but you'll have trouble with assignments in one armed only with knowledge of the other :)

I find it interesting that only one of the three keynote presentations highlighted for the 4th European Lisp Symposium directly concerns Lisp (the other two being about x86/JVM/Python and Scala).

Answer 3

"dialect" is definitely stretching it too far. Still, as someone who has learned and used Python, Javascript, and Scheme, Javascript clearly has a far Lisp-ier feel to it (and Coffeescript probably even more so) than Python.

As for why the European Lisp Symposium would want to portray Javascript as a Lisp, obviously they want to piggyback on the popularity of the Javascript for which the programmer population is many, many times larger than all the rest of the Lisp dialects in their list combined.

Answer 4

Even though I wouldn't call JavaScript a Lisp, it is, in my humble opinion, more akin to the Lisp way of doing things than most mainstream languages (even functional ones).

For one, just like Lisp, it's, in essence, a simple, imperative language based on the untyped lambda calculus that is fit to be driven by a REPL.

Second, it's easy to embed literal data (including code in the form of lambda expressions) in JavaScript, since a subset of it is equivalent to JSON. This is a common Lisp pattern.

Third, its model of values and types is very lispy. It's object-oriented in a broad sense of the word in that all values have a concept of identity, but it's not particularly object-oriented in most narrower senses of the word. Just as in Lisp, objects are typed and very dynamic. Code is usually split into units of functions, not classes.

In fact, there are a couple of (more or less) recent developments in the JavaScript world that make the language feel pretty lispy at times. Take jQuery, for example. Embedding CSS selectors as a sublanguage is a pretty Lisp-like approach, in my opinion. Or consider ECMAScript Harmony's metaobject protocol: It really looks like a direct port of Common Lisp's (much more so than either Python's or Ruby's metaobject systems!). The list goes on.

JavaScript does lack macros and a sensible implementation of a REPL with editor integration, which is unfortunate. Certainly, influences from other languages are very much visible as well (and not necessarily in a bad way). Still, there is a significant amount of cultural compatibility between the Lisp and JavaScript camps. Some of it may be coincidental (like the recent rise of JavaScript JIT compilation), some systematic, but it's definitely there.

Answer 5

Yes, it is. Quoting Crockford:

"JavaScript has much in common with Scheme. It is a dynamic language. It has a flexible datatype (arrays) that can easily simulate s-expressions. And most importantly, functions are lambdas.

Because of this deep similarity, all of the functions in [recursive programming primer] 'The Little Schemer' can be written in JavaScript."
http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html

On the subject of homoiconicity, I would recommend searching that word along with JavaScript. Saying that it is "not homoiconic" is true but not the end of the story.

Answer 6

If you call ECMAScript Lisp, you're basically asserting that any dynamic language is Lisp. Since we already have "dynamic language", you're reducing "Lisp" to a useless synonym for it instead of allowing it to have a more specific meaning.

Lisp should properly refer to a language with certain attributes.

A language is Lisp if:

• Its source code is tree-structured data, which has a straightforward printed notation as nested lists. Every possible tree structure has a rendering in the corresponding notation and is susceptible to being given a meaning as a construct; the notation itself doesn't have to be extended to extend the language.

• The tree-structured data is a principal data structure in the language itself, which makes programs susceptible to manipulation by programs.

• The language has symbol data type. Symbols have a printed representation which is interned: when two or more instances of the same printed notation for a symbol appear in the notation, they all denote the same object.

  • A symbol object's principal virtue is that it is different from all other symbols. Symbols are paired with various other entities in various ways in the semantics of Lisp programs, and thereby serve as names for those entities.
  • For instance, dialect of Lisp typically have variables, just like other languages. In Lisp, variables are denoted by symbols (the objects in memory) rather than textual names. When part of a Lisp program defines some variable a, the syntax for that a is a symbol object and not the character string "a", which is just that symbol's name for the purposes of printing. A reference to the variable, the expression written as a elsewhere in the program, is also an on object. Because of the way symbols work, it is the same object; this object sameness then connects the reference to the definition. Object sameness might be implemented as pointer equality at the machine level. We know that two symbol values are the same because they are pointers to the same memory location in the heap (an object of symbol type).
  • Case in point: the NewLisp dialect which has a non-traditional memory management for most data types, including nested lists, makes an exception for symbols by making them behave in the above way. Without this, it wouldn't be Lisp. Quote: "Objects in newLISP (excluding symbols and contexts) are passed by value copy to other user-defined functions. As a result, each newLISP object only requires one reference." [emphasis mine]. Passing symbols too, as by value copy, would destroy their identity: a function receiving a symbol wouldn't be getting the original one, and therefore not correctly receiving its identity.
• Compound expressions in a Lisp language—those which are not simple primaries like numbers or strings—consist of a simple list, whose first element is a symbol indicating the operation. The remaining elements, if any, are argument expressions. The Lisp dialect applies some sort of evaluation strategy to reduce the expression to a value, and evoke any side effects it may have.
• I would tentatively argue that lists being made of binary cells that hold pairs of values, terminated by a special empty list object, probably should be considered part of the definition of Lisp: the whole business of being able to make a new list out of an existing one by "consing" a new item to the front, and the easy recursion on the "first" and "rest" of a list, and so on.

And then I would stop right there. Some people believe that Lisp systems have to be interactive: provide an environment with a listener, in which everything is mutable, and can be redefined at any time and so on. Some believe that Lisps have to have first-class functions: that there has to be a lambda operator and so on. Staunch traditionalists might even insists that there have to be car and cdr functions, the dotted pair notation supporting improper lists, and that lists have to be made up of cells, and terminated by specifically the symbol nil denoting the empty list, and also a Boolean false. Insisting on car and cdr allows Scheme to be a Lisp, but nil being the list terminator and false rules

The more we shovel into the definition of "Lisp dialect", though, the more it becomes political; people get upset that their favorite dialect (perhaps which they created themselves) is being excluded on some technicality. Insisting on car and cdr allows Scheme to be a Lisp, but nil being the list terminator and false rules it out. What, Scheme not a Lisp?

So, based on the above, ECMAScript isn't a dialect of Lisp. However, an ECMAScript implementation contains functionality which can be exposed as a Lisp dialect and numerous such dialects have been developed. Someone who needs wants ECMAScript to be considered a Lisp for some emotional reasons should perhaps be content with that: that the semantics to support Lisp is there, and just needs a suitable interface to that semantics, which can be developed in ECMAScript and which can interoperate with ECMAScript code.