Scheme

[Alexander Schmolck]

Jedi Master Yoda <yoda at dagobah.org> writes:

> On Fri, 16 May 2003 23:46:23 +0200, Dirk Gerrits <dirk at gerrits.homeip.net> 
> spouted:
> > I just saw a thread on comp.lang.lisp and comp.lang.scheme that referred 
> > to Common Lisp as Lisp-2 and to Scheme as Lisp-1. What gives?
> 
> There are two families of Lisps, Common Lisp belongs to one kind and Scheme the
> other. The actual difference is rather trivial, at least for outsiders.

It's difficult to tell because your wording obscures what you are actually
talking about, but you don't seem to have a clue. If you meant to suggest that
the differences between CL and scheme are trivial you might as well have
claimed that the differences between, say, C and Java are trivial (Note: I am
*not* equating scheme with C or java with CL!).

Lisp-1 and Lisp-2 are not aliases for scheme and CL respectively as has
already been pointed out -- they refer to whether the lisp-dialect has
different namespaces for variables and functions (the practice of refering to
CL as a lisp-2 is a bit unfortunate anyway since it has about 7 odd
namespaces).

If you what you meant is that the difference between 1 namespace (lisp-1) and
several namespaces (lisp-2; somewhat confusingly -- CL is more lisp-7) is
trivial then the statement is less silly, but still a bit misleading -- if
you'd try to to write lots of functional code in Lisp-2 you'd likely notice a
practical difference to doing the same in Lisp-1.

Anyway, someone interested in the pros and cons of Lisp-1/Lisp-2, the
relationship between scheme and CL and the historical development of lisp can
find relevant articles at <http://www.dreamsongs.org/Essays.html>.

> However, the two camps will never be reconciled. Schemers think that
> Scheme is Lisp done right, and Common Lispers think that Scheme is a
> horrible abomination with not nearly enough syntax.

I don't think that amongst the many complaints brought forward against scheme
by CLers I've ever noticed "not nearly enough syntax" to figure prominently.
 
> If I were in a particularly mischievous mood I would compare Common Lisp
> to Perl, and Scheme to Python, but then I would get flamed to a crisp. But 
> I'm not, so I won't, so don't.

Good thing you didn't then, because that would only have reinforced the
impression of cluelessness.


'as