I'm not sure what you mean by characterize. Bourbaki-style is extremely rigorous, to the point of missing the forest for the trees. The so-called Russian style (there are plenty of non-Russian examples) is more driven toward building intuition and getting to the essence of the matter. In this way lisp is more similar to the latter because it facilitates prototype (essence) development. In Haskell you pretty much have to do a captcha equivalent of programming just to prove to the compiler you are allowed to do io :)
That is a very interesting perspective of Haskell vs. Lisp., I don't come to programming from a math background, but I am Russian. Maybe that's why I always preferred Lisp-style instead of Haskell :)
Most obviously (from the linguistic's point) Lisp is Latin of programming languages. Has the similar historical importance; similar foundational role; continued relevance, elegance and power; evokes similar reactions from neophytes.
From the point of Biology: Lisp is a prokaryotic cell - simple, fundamental, highly adaptable.
In Chemistry: Lisp is carbon - versatile, forms the basis of complex structures.
In Geology: Lisp is like bedrock - foundational and supporting diverse structures above it.
In Astronomy: Lisp is a primordial star - ancient, influential, contributing to the formation of newer elements.
In Physics: Lisp is a quark - the basis of all baryonic matter.
The difference is that it's not the case that a majority of chemists are ignorant about carbon, or geologists about bedrock, or astronomers about primordial stars or physicists about quarks.
Lisp is like an entire branch of computer science, about which a lot of people in computer science are ignorant.
Allow me to gently disagree. Most computer scientists I know are not ignorant about Lisp. Some scholars consider computer science a branch of mathematics, while others avoid such broad generalizations, as modern computer science has evolved into a broader discipline.
It's just that the majority of modern programmers are not concerned with mathematics, and that's perfectly acceptable. Mathematics itself has so many different levels that even mathematicians themselves are not always certain if they are indeed practicing mathematics.
You may be conflating programmers and computer scientists, but this could also be a perfect case of selection bias, where both of us are simultaneously correct and incorrect in our assertions.
I mean what it usually means: to list distinguishing features, or at least give (necessary and sufficient?) criteria for membership of some class.
Whilst I'm vaguely familiar with Bourbaki and how it strongly influenced the way mathematics is written today, I hadn't come across that dichotomy before. Your answer was what I was looking for!
