Lisp

Lisp is a family of general purpose programming languages, influenced by the lambda calculus, and with the ability to manipulate source code as a data structure.

Scheme

Scheme is a functional programming language in the Lisp family, closely modeled on lambda calculus with eager (applicative order) evaluation

Good ides user-friendly

Example

"Scheme is also a good language for that purpose and it is simpler smaller than lisp"

from question  

Languages for implementing decision trees

"Learning common lisp is not that difficult but getting deeper experience get take some time because the language and its eco-system is surprisingly rich;learning scheme is useful too"

from question  

Would Lisp be extremely difficult for a new(ish) programmer to learn?

"I ve also found scheme ides much more user-friendly than lisp s plt scheme is a good one"

from question  

Any suggestions for which Lisp variant to learn?

"It s popular it s actively developed it has many libraries offering the features of a modern programming environment and scheme is somewhat simpler not to say better just simpler than common lisp"

from question  

Which Lisp should I learn?

Name empty object

Example

"Additionally lisp provides a name for the empty list object while scheme does not and scheme also does not treat the empty list object as self-evaluating while lisp does;both languages provide a canonical true object as well but again lisp provides a name for it while scheme doesn t"

from question  

True and false null values in lisp vs scheme

"Lisp then chooses to pun making the empty list and false be the same object scheme does not and treats them as distinct;additionally lisp provides a name for the empty list object while scheme does not and scheme also does not treat the empty list object as self-evaluating while lisp does"

from question  

True and false null values in lisp vs scheme

Fewer conservative libraries

Example

"I ve noticed that the common lisp approach is more conservative than the approach scheme has"

from question  

Why doesn't a primitive `call-with-current-continuations` exist in Common Lisp

"Scheme is intentionally more compact than common lisp and you ll find that you can learn the language very quickly"

from question  

Would Lisp be extremely difficult for a new(ish) programmer to learn?

"I have heard that common lisp is more broadly featured while scheme is more conservative and austere but in my casual use i haven t been able to find any feature of common lisp that was not also in scheme"

from question  

* (no title is found for this review)

"Here is a solution in scheme because i know that better than common lisp and have an interpreter for checking my work"

from question  

Replace an item in a list in Common Lisp?

"I don t see why sbcl should be so fast - scheme is a far simpler language than common lisp"

from question  

What is the fastest scheme implementation?

"Overall common lisp is much more uniform than scheme and more radical language experiments if done at all are usually embedded as a portable library rather than defining a whole new language dialect"

from question  

What are the actual differences between Scheme and Common Lisp? (Or any other two dialects of Lisp)

"I noted that while in languages like c variable identifiers can only be alphanumberics and underscores common lisp allows many more characters to be used like and at least scheme does"

from question  

Valid characters for lisp symbols

"Scheme is older than common lisp"

from question  

Are there any window manager developed using scheme?

"That said it is a scheme which has fewer batteries included as compared to common lisp"

from question  

Comparing Common Lisp with Gambit w.r.t their library access and object systems

"Common lisp is the de facto standard for lisp;scheme is more pedagogical primarily due to its association with the famous mit class and book sicp although it is powerful on its own"

from question  

How viable is emacs LISP aside from editing emacs?

"Common lisp has a separate namespace for functions which makes operation like this more verbose than with scheme"

from question  

How to store a function in a variable in Lisp and use it

"Scheme has fewer libraries than common lisp"

from question  

Comparing Common Lisp with Gambit w.r.t their library access and object systems

"Common lisp is much more extendable i m a big scheme fan and sad to say but none of the reports have any standardized way to do any ffi"

from question  

* (no title is found for this review)

Others

Example

For a counterexample i think scheme programs ran faster and used less memory than the lisp programs that preceded them mdash

from question  

How is a new programming language actually formed/created?

Scheme looked more like cl than scheme but was a lisp1 so the empty list rules cannot be about lisp1 vs lisp2 since scheme was a lisp1 from the first report that didn t require quoting and has nil as a false value

from question  

'() vs () in Common Lisp

If you are new to lisp and not an emacs user presently then i would strongly recommend the free editions of either allegro lisp or lispworks;or if you are going the scheme route plt scheme which is now called racket

from question  

Common Lisp IDE for C# Developer?

But scheme is not common lisp which is what lisp typically means today they are really different languages;if you want to learn common lisp i would start with common lisp and skip scheme

from question  

Would Lisp be extremely difficult for a new(ish) programmer to learn?

Strictly speaking funcall would not be needed but there are some lisp list-2 implementations such as common lisp that separate the variable name space of the function name space;list-1 implementations scheme do not make this distinction

from question  

Why do we need funcall in Lisp?

My impression common lisp is more for getting stuff done scheme is more for education and fun

from question  

Scheme or Common Lisp?

For an environment to implement tail call elimination is mandatory in scheme but not in most other lisp dialects such as common lisp;i thought lisp using clisp would recognize the tail recursion

from question  

Is it possible to generate 40,000+ element of Fibonacci recursively in Lisp?

Fter spending years with scheme and common lisp i ve spent a year programming almost exclusively in c;when i go back to scheme scheme is much easier to express myself because i know the kinds of things the machine is good at

from question  

Would a novice learning C and Scheme simultaneously be considered bad practice?

Note that lisp is not a single language but a large family of somewhat similar languages;you seem to have tried out scheme repl.it runs biwascheme and clojurescript

from question  

QUOTE with multiple arguments

For sure this dual meaning s a complication that makes this dual meaning harder to explain the language to whoever is learning this dual meaning and that s why scheme is considered a better simpler language for teaching but many expert lispers think that it s a good choice that makes the lisp language a better tool for real problems

from question  

What is the difference between FUNCALL and #'function-name in common lisp?

This macro will make a global defun that works as in common lisp;define in scheme has more hats than defun mostly because of the one-namespace nature of scheme

from question  

Aliases for keywords

T s purpose is to test the thesis developed by steele and sussman in their series of papers about scheme that scheme may be used as the basis for a practical programming language of exceptional expressive power and that implementations of scheme could perform better than other lisp systems and competitively with implementations of programming languages such as c and bliss which are usually considered to be inherently more efficient than lisp on conventional machine architectures

from question  

* (no title is found for this review)

However gambit scheme has smoother access to c c++ code libraries which far outnumber common lisp s libraries

from question  

Comparing Common Lisp with Gambit w.r.t their library access and object systems

Other dialects of lisp such as common lisp and emacs lisp have multiple form evaluation in their cond clauses so not allowing it in scheme would only reduce compatibility adding to someone s workload when they convert code from another dialect to scheme;scheme isn t a functional language let alone a non-strictly evaluated one

from question  

Scheme: what is the intuition for COND to support multiple expressions in its body?

The class uses scheme a dialect of lisp which is significantly cleaner and easier to use than common lisp yes this is an opinion deal with this

from question  

What could be the fastest and least painful way to learn LISP for a C developer?

While common lisp supports a functional programming style that is not its general focus scheme while not purely functional is much closer;common lisp supports a completely imperative style of programming very well

from question  

Variable references in lisp

Back to Home
Data comes from Stack Exchange with CC-BY-SA-4.0