So if Janet refactored the interpreter to use linked lists, CONS/CAR/CDR everywhere in the C code but the language stayed the same (if possible) would it fit your definition of being a lisp ?
Which interpreter do you mean? A Lisp interpreter, which runs Lisp source code or a byte code interpreter?
Lisp is defined that it processes lists, either compiled or interpreted.
I'm looking at interpreted Lisp code in a debugger:
CL-USER 19 : 1 > :lambda
(LAMBDA (A) (DECLARE (SYSTEM::SOURCE-LEVEL #<EQ Hash Table{0} 8010058C43>)) (DECLARE (LAMBDA-NAME FOO)) (SETF A (+ 10 A)) (BREAK) (+ A 20))
CL-USER 20 : 1 > (car (nthcdr 5 *))
(BREAK)
For me that's the core of Lisp.
If the language and its implementation does not process lists, then don't call it to be a "List Processor".
Sorry for speaking about things I do not understand, just I am searching for a comprehensive answer in "C vs Janet" question. I have a feel that there is something beautiful in Janet but I don't know what, so I have started this tree of discussion.