4 ms·

You have to be clear about which Lisp. Clojure and Scheme are Lisps, and their focus is very much towards simplicity and the use of combinators. The complex, d

You have to be clear about which Lisp. Clojure and Scheme are Lisps, and their focus is very much towards simplicity and the use of combinators. The complex, do-it-all-in-one-huge macro is a Common Lispism, not a Lispism. Secondly, Clojure, like Haskell, is focused on sequence abstractions, not lists. Sequences can include collections, streams, observables, sockets and many other kinds of process that can be modelled as an event stream.

agentultra 11y ago
Common Lisp isn't technically focused on lists as you imply. There are plenty of libraries which provide "sequence abstractions" if that's what you need. Common Lisp provides structs, arrays, and even a hash table implementation. The methods of abstraction are transparent in Lisp.
lispm 11y ago
> Clojure and Scheme are Lisps Basically new languages with strong Lisp influence. > very much towards simplicity Scheme maybe until the early 80s. Later it grew to Common Lisp size and beyond. See Scheme R6RS which is a complex language with tons of features and still underspecified. > The complex, do-it-all-in-one-huge macro is a Common Lispism, not a Lispism. Not really. Macros appeared in Lisp in the early 60s and many Lisp dialects have used it in complex ways. For example the 'famous' LOOP macro of Common Lisp actually was developed in Interlisp in the early 70s (as a part of 'Conversational Lisp' / CLISP), redesigned in Maclisp/Zetalisp and then brought into Common Lisp. The original Common Lisp in 1984 did not even have that macro in the language description, it was standardized several years later - after a search for a better alternative failed.
- jeorgun 11y ago
  Calling Scheme a "new language with a strong Lisp influence" is a bit rich. It's certainly not new, and in many respects it's more representative of Lisps-of-Old than Common Lisp.
  - lispm 11y ago
    Lisp started in 1958. Popular Lisps in the 60s/70s were Lisp 1.5, Lisp 1.6, Interlisp, Maclisp and Standard Lisp. Scheme grew out of research from 75-80 (the Lambda Papers), investigating Actors and bringing ALGOL and Lisp together. Thus Scheme is the newer language. >it's more representative of Lisps-of-Old than Common Lisp. Common Lisp contains a direct core of the original McCarthy Lisp. One can develop in Common Lisp in the typical styles of the 60s and 70s. With PROGs and GOTOs, symbols and property lists, dynamic binding, procedural macros, ... Scheme was different: it introduced a more functional style, lexical scope, closures built-in, away from symbols and dynamic binding, ..., continuations, hygienic macros, TCO (recursion instead of direct iteration constructs), ... for some years people tried to bridge the gap (for example by providing a Scheme in Common Lisp, by reusing the concepts or by writing to a compatibility layer), but nowadays there is very little sharing.
- qwertyuiop924 11y ago
  R6RS was basically DOA, with only 3 or 4 implementers (Guile, Ikarus, Ypsilon, and (partially) Racket) actually going along with it. Most of the other implementers, most notably CHICKEN's Felix Winkelman, refused. R7RS is now split into a small core, and a large standard library for practical, as opposed to teaching, use, whose development STILL isn't done.
  - lispm 11y ago
    The R7RS homepage says something different: >This is the home page for R7RS, the Revised⁷ Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme. This version of Scheme has been divided into a small language, suitable for educators, researchers, and users of embedded languages; and a large language focused on the practical needs of mainstream software development. >The report on the small language was finalized on July 6, 2013. It is available in PDF format and as LaTeX source code. There are errata. >The development of the large language is still in progress. For details on the development process of both languages, see the Scheme Reports home page and the Working Groups home page.
    - qwertyuiop924 11y ago
      Yeah, that's what I said. Large still isn't done.

agentultra 11y ago

Common Lisp isn't technically focused on lists as you imply. There are plenty of libraries which provide "sequence abstractions" if that's what you need. Common Lisp provides structs, arrays, and even a hash table implementation. The methods of abstraction are transparent in Lisp.

lispm 11y ago

> Clojure and Scheme are Lisps Basically new languages with strong Lisp influence. > very much towards simplicity Scheme maybe until the early 80s. Later it grew to Common Lisp size and beyond. See Scheme R6RS which is a complex language with tons of features and still underspecified. > The complex, do-it-all-in-one-huge macro is a Common Lispism, not a Lispism. Not really. Macros appeared in Lisp in the early 60s and many Lisp dialects have used it in complex ways. For example the 'famous' LOOP macro of Common Lisp actually was developed in Interlisp in the early 70s (as a part of 'Conversational Lisp' / CLISP), redesigned in Maclisp/Zetalisp and then brought into Common Lisp. The original Common Lisp in 1984 did not even have that macro in the language description, it was standardized several years later - after a search for a better alternative failed.

jeorgun 11y ago
Calling Scheme a "new language with a strong Lisp influence" is a bit rich. It's certainly not new, and in many respects it's more representative of Lisps-of-Old than Common Lisp.
- lispm 11y ago
  Lisp started in 1958. Popular Lisps in the 60s/70s were Lisp 1.5, Lisp 1.6, Interlisp, Maclisp and Standard Lisp. Scheme grew out of research from 75-80 (the Lambda Papers), investigating Actors and bringing ALGOL and Lisp together. Thus Scheme is the newer language. >it's more representative of Lisps-of-Old than Common Lisp. Common Lisp contains a direct core of the original McCarthy Lisp. One can develop in Common Lisp in the typical styles of the 60s and 70s. With PROGs and GOTOs, symbols and property lists, dynamic binding, procedural macros, ... Scheme was different: it introduced a more functional style, lexical scope, closures built-in, away from symbols and dynamic binding, ..., continuations, hygienic macros, TCO (recursion instead of direct iteration constructs), ... for some years people tried to bridge the gap (for example by providing a Scheme in Common Lisp, by reusing the concepts or by writing to a compatibility layer), but nowadays there is very little sharing.
qwertyuiop924 11y ago
R6RS was basically DOA, with only 3 or 4 implementers (Guile, Ikarus, Ypsilon, and (partially) Racket) actually going along with it. Most of the other implementers, most notably CHICKEN's Felix Winkelman, refused. R7RS is now split into a small core, and a large standard library for practical, as opposed to teaching, use, whose development STILL isn't done.
- lispm 11y ago
  The R7RS homepage says something different: >This is the home page for R7RS, the Revised⁷ Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme. This version of Scheme has been divided into a small language, suitable for educators, researchers, and users of embedded languages; and a large language focused on the practical needs of mainstream software development. >The report on the small language was finalized on July 6, 2013. It is available in PDF format and as LaTeX source code. There are errata. >The development of the large language is still in progress. For details on the development process of both languages, see the Scheme Reports home page and the Working Groups home page.
  - qwertyuiop924 11y ago
    Yeah, that's what I said. Large still isn't done.