When reading "Lisp-2", Most lisp programmers will probably think of the lisp dialects with 2 namespaces, one for value binding, one for function binding. See https://andersmurphy.com/2019/03/08/lisp-1-vs-lisp-2.html

Lisp-2 are still alive; emacs lisp is a lisp-2. If you extrapolate hard enough, both Erlang and Elixir are lisp-2.

Common Lisp is another example of a Lisp with 2 namespaces.

Common Lisp has more than two namespaces.

The point is that it has more than one.

". . . with a namespace for functions that is different from the one for ordinary values", then!

I got into this trouble by wanting to avoid contributing to the perpetuation of the terms "Lisp-1" and "Lisp-2". I find those 2 terms regrettable because using a short name for a concept implies that the concept is important, but whether functions share the same namespace as values do is not IMO an important decision in the design of a programming language: changing the decision changes the character of the language in only a few superficial ways.

Yeah. Lisp 1s are more common though. Racket, Scheme, Clojure, ... Hell, Javascript is also a lisp 1.

Not really. See http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/07/18/javascript-isnt...

Chill, man. I know I was stretching. It is undeniable that javascript took inspiration from lisp/scheme.

It exists somehow with Elixir. It's not homoiconic and the interactive development experience is far from being as good as Common Lisp or even Clojure but it supports metaprogramming at an advanced level, is functional and dynamically typed.

Besides Algol-like syntax, LISP 2 was meant to be compiled, fast and statically typed.

Common Lisp is 2 out of those three. Implementations such as SBCL give you a lot of static typing too, even though it's optional.

Arguably, CGOL later did this concept better, using portable Lisp code.