[…]the basic qualifications for “Lispiness”: 1.Does not hide the abstract syntax tree from programmers. 2.Does not force a non-modifiable syntax on programmers. 3.Does not impose an arbitrary order of sub-expression evaluation on programmers. 4.Does not force a bondage-and-discipline type system on programmers. 5.Does not create an arbitrary distinction between “run-time” and “compile-time.”
[…]
[1] Many more-or-less respectable Lisps are somewhat weak in unfeature #5. Some so-called Lisps have quietly abandoned unfeature #4 [Qi/Shen]. And there are a few programming systems which lack unfeatures #2 and/or #3 — and still manage to be called “Lisps” by some people [Clojure]! There are even those who refer to systems lacking unfeature #1 as Lisps [Ruby]! What can we say to them? Words have meanings! To these lost souls, “lisp” is probably just a speech impediment…
— Stanislav Datskovskiy, somewhat out of context
