Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[David Rush]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:36:32 -0400, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> ... Lispers posting here have gone to pains to state that Scheme is
> not a dialect of Lisp but a separate Lisp-like language.  Could you
> give a short listing of the current main differences (S vs. CL)?

Do you even begin to appreciate how inflammatory such a request is when 
posted to to both c.l.l and c.l.s?

Anyway, as a fairly heavily biased Schemer:

	Scheme vs Common Lisp

	1 name space vs multiple name spaces
		This is a bigger issue than it seems on the surface, BTW

	#f vs nil
		In Scheme an empty list is not considered to be the same
		thing as boolean false

	emphasis on all values being first-class vs ad-hoc values
		Scheme tries to achieve this, Lisp is by conscious design a
		compromise system design, for both good and bad

	small semantic footprint vs large semantic footprint
		Scheme seems relatively easier to keep in mind as an
		additional language.CL appears to have several sub-languages
		embedded in it. This cuts both ways, mind you.

Thos eare the most obvious surface issues. My main point is that it is
pretty much silly to consider any of the above in isolation. Both languages
make a lot of sense in their design context. I vastly prefer Scheme because
it suits my needs (small semantic footprint, powerful toolkit) far better
than CL (everything is there if you have the time to look for it). I should
point out that I build a lot of funny data structures (suffix trees and 
other
IR magic) for which pre-built libraries are both exceedingly rare and
incorrectly optimized for the specific application.

I also like the fact that Scheme hews rather a lot closer to the 
theoretical
foundations of CS than CL, but then again that's all part of the small 
semantic
footprint for me.

david rush
-- 
(\x.(x x) \x.(x x)) -> (s i i (s i i))
        -- aki helin (on comp.lang.scheme)