Something that would be of more interest would be a comparison of
Scheme and PicoLisp. I think even people who who use CL a lot are kind
of embarrassed about a lot of the design choices, and recognize that it
was meant to be a practical hodgepodge of features from different
lisps, rather than a focused design philosophy.

Of course, a lot of the same points below would still apply. But with
Schemes the whole issue of composability vs monolithism as mentioned in
the article pretty much melts away. SRFI-1 has all the
"haskell" functions mentioned in the article.

I work with Guile Scheme, and to me the biggest differences between
Guile and PicoLisp are: (1) Guile code is compiled (though often at
runtime); and (2) Guile is designed from the ground up to interface
well with system libraries (you can even embed Guile inside a C program
fairly easily).

Of course, scheme is really just a language specification and design
philosophy, and implementations get even more fragmented than CL does,
because Scheme is more minimalistic and extensible than CL. So, perhaps
a comparison of Scheme and PicoLisp would be even more challenging.

On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 17:07 +0200, wrote:
> Disclaimer: I don't really know Common Lisp.
> Just a try, use it as inspiration not as answer, would need re-
> wording to be used as quora answer:
> - they're about the same age, both inspired by Maclisp, both used
> commercially since the 1980s
> - picolisp is a language and runtime VM - CL is a language
> specification with multiple implementations
> - CL libraries may often be platform-dependent (or depend on a
> certain compiler to be used) - code in picolisp has much less such
> dependencies
> - picolisp has no compiler, purely interpreted by design - CL is
> usually compiled, interpreted only during development
> - picolisp directly evals s-expressions, the structure of the memory
> representation is the same as the structure of the source code -
> common lisp compiles to XX (?)
> - only 3 strong types: list, number (arterially big signed integers),
> symbol (with property list), all other types are dynamically duck-
> typed - common lisp has many types (?)
> - picolisp uses F-Expressions (FEXPRs, Functions which decide
> themselves if/when/how to evaluate arguments) - common lisps uses
> macros (rewrite code). F-Expr are slightly more powerful but cannot
> be compiled
> - common lisp as big community - picolisp community is pico
> - many libraries for CL - in picolisp programmers usually re-use
> libraries from other languages
> - picolisp strongly follows unix philosophy - CL does not follow unix
> philosophy (
> rence )
> - picolisp has integrated graph database, persistent database objects
> are first-class citizens, integrated prolog engine
> - picolisp has no multithreading, instead picolisp has integrated IPC
> to work with multiple processes and makes asynchronious programming
> easy - common lisp has ... ???
> Please correct my errors.
> Most points of the FAQ should probably go into the quora answer: http
> ://
> See also:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike Pechkin []
> To:
> Sent: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:58:05 +0300
> Subject: Re: PicoLisp on
> >
> >
> > Uh, oh, this is really tough.
> Just one smart paragraph.
> (mike)
Christopher Howard
Enterprise Solutions Manager
Alaska Satellite Internet
3239 La Ree Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
personal web site:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to