4 ms·

We already have both Theory Focused Lisp (Scheme) and Practice Focused Lisp (CL). What did I (sorry, I meant you :) miss?

• herdrick 17y ago
  The idea is that Scheme has been controlled by the expansionists lately and has gotten pretty large and practical. As for why people don't just use CL, Scheme isn't laden with the historical mistakes that Common Lisp is, Scheme is still capable of evolving, and "large Scheme" is much more approachable to beginners than CL because of DrScheme and other efforts of the PLT people. And some people just like Scheme's approach better.
  • polos 17y ago
    historical mistakes (regarding CL) is only an opinion, not a fact. For many aspects it's a huge advantage of CL to not having continuously evolve into something slightly different and only opinionatedly better. I know both Scheme and CL, and I'll continue to prefer CL for at least the next decade coming, I think. Meantime, I like all the effort anybody is putting in any kind of Lisp, and I always follow the different attempts (the different Schemes, Arc, Clojure).
    • herdrick 17y ago
      No I think Common Lisp does have more mistakes than Scheme. But I should have said, "Scheme isn't as laden with mistakes..." And that's partly because most of the current Scheme standard was evolved after the Common Lisp standard was set. Agreed on your last point, and I recommend trying Clojure out for some little project. It might surprise you how much more succinct it is than Common Lisp. Arc too, from what I've heard.
• icey 17y ago
  You missed this paren: )