NewLisp

From a Lisp POV, the only thing wrong with NewLisp is the name. It flouts McCarthy's wish that no language be called just Lisp. Well, okay, it's not literally called Lisp; it has the "New" in front. On the surface, it seems to be sticking to the letter of the wish. Does it conform to the spirit, though? Is a common English adjective enough? Is "New" a sufficient qualifier? The mere prefixing of "New" looks like it's claiming to be…

(Somehow) a competitor of NewLisp is Janet (https://janet-lang.org/). Syntax inspired in Clojure.

Better spend your time learning Clojure, Racket, Scheme or Common Lisp. NewLisp repeats the design mistakes of ancient Lisps that were fixed in the newer Lisps, like dynamic scoping and interpreting only instead of compiling which makes it much slower than other Lisps. NewLisp should be called OldLisp. It also adds some mistakes of its own, like deep copying everything when you pass it around. And making `cons` act like `list` when the second argument is not a list.

I guess everything old is new again - Here's a decent overview of some of the past newLisp drama: http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2006/04/20/newlisp-an-intriguin...