JavaScript is really nothing like Lisp. Macros/code is data and simple syntax are basically the defining features of a Lisp. Apart from these, JavaScript's type system is totally different (way weaker, based on objects but nothing like CLOS), JS isn't based on lists/pairs as the primary data structure, JS emphasizes imperative programming, etc. I don't know where this myth came about (probably because rumor that Brendan Eich initially intended to use Scheme instead of JS, although this never happened).
> rumor that Brendan Eich initially intended to use Scheme instead of JS, although this never happened
I wonder what'd have happened had he done so. Would it have grown to the size that JavaScript is at today, or would it have lost to something similar to JavaScript that some other browser would have implemented?
I believe they hired him under the impression of doing actual Scheme for the browser, but then they did the old corporate bait-and-switch on him:
"The immediate concern at Netscape was it must look like Java. People have done Algol-like syntaxes for Lisp but I didn't have time to take a Scheme core so I ended up doing it all directly and that meant I could make the same mistakes that others make."
I think it would've been replaced by a competing standard. Then again, the barrier of entry for Scheme is pretty low, there really wouldn't be much stopping people from using it. My prediction would be small-scale adoption of the Scheme standard, then a gradual phase out within a few years because a Netscape competitor (or maybe even the company itself) would have replaced with something more C-like because of complaints about parentheses.
