Python's Lisp heritage

[Brett g Porter]

"Paul Foley" <see at below> wrote in message
news:m2wuv0xr1u.fsf at mycroft.actrix.gen.nz...
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 02:32:29 -0700, James J Besemer wrote:
>
> > That being said, I guess I just don't get the strong reaction to this
secondary
> > point.  I'm new here but I get the impression that "lisp" is a naughty
word,
> > for some unfathomable reason
>
> A lot of people think "Lisp" means "Scheme".
> Scheme sucks, so they think "Lisp" sucks.
>
> [Scheme isn't Lisp.  Scheme are Lisp are only distantly related, and
> Scheme is about as closely related to Algol as to Lisp...]

I'd be interested to learn more about this -- the only ref I have in hand is
Abelson & Sussman * 2's "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs",
which sez (on p 3 of my hard copy, but the link here is to the online
version):

http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-9.html#%_chap_1
"Lisp was not the product of a concerted design effort. Instead, it evolved
informally in an experimental manner in response to users' needs and to
pragmatic implementation considerations. Lisp's informal evolution has
continued through the years, and the community of Lisp users has
traditionally resisted attempts to promulgate any ``official'' definition of
the language. This evolution, together with the flexibility and elegance of
the initial conception, has enabled Lisp, which is the second oldest
language in widespread use today (only Fortran is older), to continually
adapt to encompass the most modern ideas about program design. Thus, Lisp is
by now a family of dialects, which, while sharing most of the original
features, may differ from one another in significant ways. The dialect of
Lisp used in this book is called Scheme"

In what ways are Scheme and Lisp only distantly related?

--
// Brett g Porter * Lead Engineer, Development Practices
// BgPorter at artlogic.com * www.artlogic.com
// Art & Logic, Inc. * software engineering and design
// Desktop * Embedded * Web