Re: Scheme vs LISP
- From: "Tayssir John Gabbour" <tayss_temp2@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 May 2006 12:28:53 -0700
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
.
- References:
- Scheme vs LISP
- From: fabricemarchant
- Re: Scheme vs LISP
- From: Eli Gottlieb
- Re: Scheme vs LISP
- From: Emilio Lopes
- Scheme vs LISP
- Prev by Date: Lisp as a scripting language
- Next by Date: Re: Lookup tables
- Previous by thread: Re: Scheme vs LISP
- Next by thread: Re: Scheme vs LISP
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
