there's obviously a strong family resemblance, but scheme's focus on purity over practicality lends to a much different feel. one of the illustrations from thi

there's obviously a strong family resemblance, but scheme's focus on purity over practicality lends to a much different feel. one of the illustrations from this 20 year old discussion that someone linked here a bit ago [t] was that, while you might say c is a 'member of the algol family', you wouldn't say that c 'is an algol'. perhaps an extreme example, but the idea is that lisp having a history of multiple implementations doesn't make scheme one of them. put another way- while schemes extrapolate on a similar kind of purity to that which lisps are already famous for, giving them a kind of 'more lisp than lisp' aura, that shouldn't negate the language split. [t] https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.lisp/c/Bj8Hx6mZEYI https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.lisp/c/Bj8Hx6mZEYI (perhaps skim kent pitman's posts for a summary)