

Scheme over Common Lisp - edu
http://www.solve-et-coagula.com/?p=14

======
brlewis
The Lisp-1 vs Lisp-2 issue is really a matter of personal preference. Going to
Lisp-1 gains you nicer higher-order function syntax, but costs you twice as
many namespace collisions. It depends what you want.

Scheme define vs CL defun is a total non-issue. I'm glad he discovered that.

I program in Scheme all the time and rarely use call/cc.

~~~
pg
I've used both types of Lisp extensively, and I'm now convinced Lisp2 is a
mistake. There's not really any downside to not making that mistake. I program
daily in a Lisp1 (Arc) and I don't get any more name collisions than I did
using CL.

------
jimbokun
No mention of library support?

True, not much library support for CL, but even less for Scheme, no?

The other thing I like about CL is the no-nonsense defmacro. I don't get the
whole "hygiene" thing, but it seems like one of those "it's good for you, it
builds character" things that tries to keep you from shooting your foot off,
and if you're really worried about that you'll be using Java or Haskell
anyway. Or am I missing something here?

Otherwise agreed. Lisp1 is a clear win and efficient, functional-style
recursion is more beautiful than the mess of iteration operators in CL
(although loop is beautiful in its own demented way).

------
apgwoz
He hits many of the reasons why I never gave CL a try. Scheme just seemed to
fit in my head easier, made more sense and of course continuations. Though to
be fair, don't many CLs have some support for continuations, outside of CPS?

