4 ms·

I have chosen to look further into Scheme rather than Common Lisp, in part because it appears simpler, but also that Common Lisp is said to be directed by a sta

by IvarTJ 16y ago

I have chosen to look further into Scheme rather than Common Lisp, in part because it appears simpler, but also that Common Lisp is said to be directed by a standard that has stood still for many years and which doesn’t address many new issues faced by programmers. Scheme appears more nimble with many different implementations for different purposes. For historical reasons, I would call Scheme a Lisp, and I would not use the word Lisp as synonymous to Common Lisp. Common Lisp surfaced after Scheme, and Lisp was used of programming languages even before Scheme.

muyuu 16y ago
Scheme moves very little, standards-wise. It's still mostly R5RS and R4RS, with R6RS being deemed a total failure. The standard of Scheme, if at all, is being set by major implementations. However, Scheme is designed so you make your own early in the learning process.
- IvarTJ 16y ago
  True, but as I understand it, the Scheme standard isn’t as complicated as that of Common Lisp. Implementations are partially standardized through SRFIs as well, which I think is a more active process.
  - enduser 16y ago
    R5RS is famously shorter than the index of the ANSI Common Lisp spec.