3 ms·
Interesting that "Lisp" is assumed to be Common Lisp and that Scheme is assumed to be strictly a learning tool. I've found Racket to be much more useful than an
by lucian1900 14y ago
Interesting that "Lisp" is assumed to be Common Lisp and that Scheme is assumed to be strictly a learning tool. I've found Racket to be much more useful than any other Common Lisp/Scheme.
- gnosis 14y agoI have to agree with that. I find Scheme to be a lot cleaner, more modern, and easier to use than Common Lisp. I really only see two reasons to choose Common Lisp over Scheme. The first is that CL has a ton of libraries compared to most Schemes (though Racket has quite a few of its own.. I'm not sure how those two would compare on the library front). The second reason is that CL has a much larger community.
- vseloved 14y agoWell, Common Lisp is Lisp, Racket is Scheme, they are different. This perpetual confusion is just useless. Let's call things by their names. You don't call C++ C or php perl, right?
- qu4z-2 14y agoCommon Lisp is Lisp. Racket is Scheme. Scheme is Lisp. SBCL is Common Lisp.
- vseloved 14y agoLet's translate it to C: C99 is C. C++0x is C++. C++ is C. Clang is C99. Do all the lines seem correct?
- qu4z-2 14y agoI disagree with your translation. I admit that "SBCL is Common Lisp" is a stretch, but no more than your original "Racket is Scheme". How about instead: LISP 1.5 is like C Common Lisp is like C++ Scheme is like Objective-C (ignoring all the other Lisp dialects that have fallen by the wayside: Maclisp, Interlisp, ZetaLisp)
- vseloved 14y agoHere's a more detailed answer: http://lisp-univ-etc.blogspot.com/2013/01/common-lisp-is-just-lisp.html http://lisp-univ-etc.blogspot.com/2013/01/common-lisp-is-jus... I also agree, that Racket is not Scheme, it's a new language. But I stand, that Common Lisp is still a Lisp. Lisp 1.5 would be BCPL or B :) (Why? Because C is in active use, while Lisp 1.5 isn't, so your analogy isn't quite correct)
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]