Scheme is a Lisp. I've never met anyone who disagrees.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.lisp/Bj8Hx...
I've pasted some text from that thread. I pasted reasons not because of their quality, but to show that there were people passionate about the distinction.
> at the Lisp & Functional Programming conference, there was serious difficulty getting Lisp papers accepted. Lisp papers were about engineering, and Scheme papers were about mathy and theoretical issues. And, to be utterly crude about it, what I think gets papers accepted to such conferences is heavy use of greek letters
> a scheme program is defined as a string of characters whereas a CL program is defined as a sequence of lists of Lisp objects. This may seem pedantic or trivial but a lot of different design decisions follow from this. It makes Scheme an infix member of the Algol language family.
> The Scheme community has evolved a set of values at odds with the spirit of Lisp: the goal for simplicity at the expense of convenience (compare the concept of CL's $item designators with the design of convert stuff explicitly like Scheme's exact->inexact), the goal of only giving basic blocks and letting you assemble stuff yourself (call/cc isn't a replacement for a worked out exception system).
> I think it's a small group of insecure Scheme users who think that they should be considered "A Lisp" so that they get all the "publicity" that Lisp does along with the publicity that Scheme does.
> What those Schemers get from defaming Lisp beats me. Probaby some sort of jealous envy.
Does anybody have any idea what he is referring to? I can perhaps see the first part being true, even though most of rnrs speaks in terms of objects.
But how in the heck could Scheme possibly be considered infix, or "an" ALGOL?
No, it isn't.
> I've never met anyone who disagrees.
Now you have.
He didnt do more than just claim it.
> You might supply some reasons why you think Scheme isn't a Lisp.
So you want a negative proof without providing a positive proof first?
> That would make a much more informative post.
So why didnt you remind the previous poster of this, instead of reminding me?
I replied to you because, while an unsupported claim is regrettable, an unsupported denial takes you all the way into "Is too! Is not!" 5-year-old-style argument. iak8god started down that road; your reply went further down it.
It also seemed to me that your attitude was sharper than iak8god's. Your reply to me did not change that opinion.
> So you want a negative proof without providing a positive proof first?
Yes. I want you to try to be better than the person you're replying to, rather than trying to be at least as bad.
Do you need more "proof" of this than Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language... ?