6 ms·
I know, but I just don't get it. Common Lisp sure feels closer to elisp than Scheme does, and I'm constantly missing things from Common Lisp when I'm writing e
by zeveb 9y ago
I know, but I just don't get it. Common Lisp sure feels closer to elisp than Scheme does, and I'm constantly missing things from Common Lisp when I'm writing elisp (e.g. read macros, packages or character as a type distinct from integers).
For me, at least, elisp just feels like a primitive Common Lisp while Scheme feels like a completely different language with a similar surface syntax.
- lispm 9y agoMy take: he did not like the added complexity in CL compared to Maclisp or even simpler Lisps. I doubt he is a big believer in Scheme either.