Hi LISP coders !
Here is a simple question :
what's the basic difference(s) between Scheme and LISP ?
This non odd subject was surely treated somewhere, maybe in a Scheme
introduction ?
A link would be enough.
Unless three lines are sufficient...
Thanks for advance !
Fabrice
···············@free.fr wrote:
> Hi LISP coders !
>
> Here is a simple question :
> what's the basic difference(s) between Scheme and LISP ?
>
> This non odd subject was surely treated somewhere, maybe in a Scheme
> introduction ?
>
> A link would be enough.
> Unless three lines are sufficient...
>
> Thanks for advance !
>
> Fabrice
>
First of all, LISP is a family of languages based on McCarthy's original
Lisp.
Scheme is a minimalistic Lisp which aims to be an entirely functional
language. Its main use is as a teaching language and for scripting
larger applications.
What you refered to as "Lisp" is probably Common Lisp and its relatives.
These are large, powerful LISPs meant for serious programming, which
usually contain non-functional constructs necessary to make programming
more convenient (such as loops), code-returning macros, lots of useful
data types, and functions for talking to the operating system.
--
The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
constructed.
Eli Gottlieb writes:
> Scheme is a minimalistic Lisp which aims to be an entirely functional
> language.
Not true. Scheme has `set!', `set-car!' and `set-cdr!' for instance.
AFAIK there is no intention of making Scheme "entirely functional".
> Its main use is as a teaching language and for scripting larger
> applications.
What does "scripting" mean? I would say there are not many Scheme
systems which are pure interpreters. Most of them provide a compiler
either to C, native or VM byte code.
> What you refered to as "Lisp" is probably Common Lisp and its
> relatives. These are large, powerful LISPs meant for serious
> programming, which usually contain non-functional constructs necessary
> to make programming more convenient (such as loops), code-returning
> macros, lots of useful data types, and functions for talking to the
> operating system.
There are people doing "serious programming" in Scheme as well using
"powerful" Schemes like Scheme 48, Scsh, Kawa or ...
Some Scheme systems even provide more than one kind of macro system,
btw.
--
Em�lio C. Lopes
Munich, Germany
Emilio Lopes wrote:
> Eli Gottlieb writes:
> > What you refered to as "Lisp" is probably Common Lisp and its
> > relatives. These are large, powerful LISPs meant for serious
> > programming, which usually contain non-functional constructs necessary
> > to make programming more convenient (such as loops), code-returning
> > macros, lots of useful data types, and functions for talking to the
> > operating system.
>
> There are people doing "serious programming" in Scheme as well using
> "powerful" Schemes like Scheme 48, Scsh, Kawa or ...
>
> Some Scheme systems even provide more than one kind of macro system,
> btw.
Yes, I think the intuition people are wishing to get across is that
Scheme appears to follow the (sensible) academic tradition of isolating
various historic strands and trying a clean model based on them.
I'm sure the history of Scheme is quite a bit more detailed than that;
I expect Gabriel/Steele's hopl2-uncut has a good history, which in my
vague recollection is something like:
1) Hewitt's Actors model
2) ???
3) Scheme!
<religious_outburst>
I should say that I have the same dislike when I see Scheme code...
those blobs containing all that car/cons/lambda... that a Schemer must
have when seeing #'funcall or some others have when seeing
(()())(()))). I started out with SICP, and it surprises me that people
can ever get used to that particular convoluted functional programming
style, where you know that the guy's doing something with conses, but
who wants to sit there and figure it out, or get used to the patterns
which presumably Schemers gradually learn?
</religious_outburst>
Tayssir
On 2006-05-15 14:23:07 -0400, Emilio Lopes <·····@gmx.net> said:
> There are people doing "serious programming" in Scheme as well using
> "powerful" Schemes like Scheme 48, Scsh, Kawa or ...
>
> Some Scheme systems even provide more than one kind of macro system,
> btw.
The major downside to scheme being that their isn't a scheme. There are
3823756 different scheme flavors though, each slightly different than
the others. I thought writing common lisp code that ran everywhere was
hard until I tried the same thing in scheme. It's damn near impossible.
You end up having to pick your favorite implementation with its own
little library of functions you need but aren't in scheme proper and
aren't like everyone else's little library. One day after checking
the documentation for 4 different scheme implementations of string
handling functions that should have been in the standard but weren't
I decided to drop scheme.
I'll take my big "bloated" common lisp, thank you very much.
YMMV.
Novus
Novus writes:
> On 2006-05-15 14:23:07 -0400, Emilio Lopes <·····@gmx.net> said:
>> There are people doing "serious programming" in Scheme as well using
>> "powerful" Schemes like Scheme 48, Scsh, Kawa or ...
> The major downside to scheme being that their isn't a scheme. There are
> 3823756 different scheme flavors though, each slightly different than
> the others.
Yes, that's true. There are many Scheme implementations, each having
its peculiarities, its strengths and weakness. Sure it's a different
scale because of Scheme's smaller size, but that's not much different
with Common Lisp, judging from the number of "which Lisp?" threads one
sees in cll.
I think that's a problem mostly for newbies, who fear the diversity.
> I thought writing common lisp code that ran everywhere was hard
> until I tried the same thing in scheme. It's damn near impossible.
One can do a lot in Scheme using the core language and SRFIs. The
reference implementations of most SRFIs are written this way. This
will be even more true after the upcoming R6RS.
> You end up having to pick your favorite implementation with its own
> little library of functions you need but aren't in scheme proper and
> aren't like everyone else's little library.
From what I read here I would say that most experienced Lispers just
stick to the features of a certain implementation when doing "serious
programming". That's not different in Scheme and I think you don't
have much of a choice if you want to deliver a real world program.
> One day after checking the documentation for 4 different scheme
> implementations of string handling functions that should have been
> in the standard but weren't I decided to drop scheme.
This particular case is intriguing, since SRFI-13 [1], which provides
an excellent library for handling strings, is ubiquitous among Scheme
implementations.
> I'll take my big "bloated" common lisp, thank you very much.
>
> YMMV.
Lisp, be it Common Lisp or Scheme [2], is an excellent Language. It's
amazing how productive you can be with it. You play here and there with
small code snippets and pretty soon you have a working application. People
should stop complaining about lacking libraries, too many implementations,
lack of standards, lack of "benevolent dictators", lack of this or that and
start working. You know, writing programs.
[1] http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-13/srfi-13.html
[2] I myself wear proudly one of those "Lisp" t-shirts.
--
Em�lio C. Lopes
Munich, Germany
On 2006-05-16 15:43:43 -0400, Emilio Lopes <·····@gmx.net> said:
> Lisp, be it Common Lisp or Scheme [2], is an excellent Language. It's
> amazing how productive you can be with it. You play here and there with
> small code snippets and pretty soon you have a working application. People
> should stop complaining about lacking libraries, too many implementations,
> lack of standards, lack of "benevolent dictators", lack of this or that and
> start working. You know, writing programs.
Yes, that is good advice.
In your list of common complaints you missed mine -- more annoying to deliver
an application than it needs to be. One thing I liked about Scheme was that
many implementations actually had a simple, documented way to bundle a compiled
application for delivery to a customer.
It would be nice if that were convenient in Common Lisp without shelling out
several grand on a commercial implementation.
Novus
P.S. Cue discussion about how it's "easy" to deliver lisp apps and I'm wrong ;)
On 2006-05-17, Novus <·····@ngoqde.org> wrote:
> On 2006-05-16 15:43:43 -0400, Emilio Lopes <·····@gmx.net> said:
>
>> Lisp, be it Common Lisp or Scheme [2], is an excellent Language. It's
>> amazing how productive you can be with it. You play here and there with
>> small code snippets and pretty soon you have a working application. People
>> should stop complaining about lacking libraries, too many implementations,
>> lack of standards, lack of "benevolent dictators", lack of this or that and
>> start working. You know, writing programs.
>
> Yes, that is good advice.
>
> In your list of common complaints you missed mine -- more annoying to deliver
> an application than it needs to be. One thing I liked about Scheme was that
> many implementations actually had a simple, documented way to bundle a compiled
> application for delivery to a customer.
>
> It would be nice if that were convenient in Common Lisp without shelling out
> several grand on a commercial implementation.
> P.S. Cue discussion about how it's "easy" to deliver lisp apps and I'm wrong ;)
Don't both CLISP *and* SBCL produce executable images now?
That seems awfully simple.
Bruce
On Mon, 15 May 2006 00:30:14 +0200, <···············@free.fr> wrote:
> Hi LISP coders !
>
> Here is a simple question :
> what's the basic difference(s) between Scheme and LISP ?
Scheme is a kind of Lisp, Lisp is not a kind of Scheme.
P.
--
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
···············@free.fr writes:
> [...]
> what's the basic difference(s) between Scheme and LISP ?
> [...]
> A link would be enough.
> [...]
Since there have been a lot of waves of lisp newbies on cll, it may be
worthwhile to learn about groups.google.com, to get faster answers:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&num=10&q=difference+scheme+lisp+group%3Acomp.lang.lisp&safe=off&qt_s=Search
Also relevant:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&num=10&q=%22lisp-1%22+%22lisp-2%22+group%3Acomp.lang.lisp&safe=off&qt_s=Search
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
In a World without Walls and Fences,
who needs Windows and Gates?
Hi !
I'm very sorry, my job killed me this week : exhausted.
Apologizes for my rudeness.
Thanks for the numerous and interesting answers : I learned a lot !
Wasn't surprise to discover that similar question was raised.