Mario Lang wrote: > Dave Phillips <[email protected]> writes: > > >> Terrence Brannon wrote: >> >>> * I was looking at the TOC of this text and it speaks about Lisp >>> programming, but the latest implementation of CM uses Scheme. Is >>> Lisp meant in a more general sense? >>> >>> >> Lisp has various "dialects". Scheme is one of them. >> > > I am not sure I agree with you. Its like saying "C has > several dialects, C++ is one of them." There are a few > fundamental differences between Scheme and Lisp which I'd consider > different enough to not call them dialects of each other. True they > both use prefix-notation and parenthesis, but there are really > quite a few differences in the details. > > First of all, in Scheme functions and values do not have a separate > namespace, in Lisp a function can have the same name as a variable. > > Additionally, in Scheme you only have lexical-scoping, > in Lisp you have lexical scoping by default with an option > to define dynamic scope for specific variables. > > And so on, I guess I am getting into a language ware here :-) > > I am underlining this because I learnt both languages, > and I very well remember how they both felt fundamentally > different to program with. > >
Hi Mario, I cheerfully defer to your experience. My impressions are based on a limited exposure Lisp and its progeny through experiments with the "Common" family of software - Scheme and Lisp with CM - and Bill Schottstaedt's SND (Guile there, IIRC). I'm afraid I'm strictly an amateur and an unworthy foe in any sort of language war. :) Best, dp _______________________________________________ Cmdist mailing list [email protected] http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist
