From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: I don't understand Lisp Date: 1998/09/14 Message-ID: <3114753392163854@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 390967260 References: <35fb182d.86050524@news.newsguy.com> <35F93F29.FA65383B@altera.gr> <35ffee9a.337551283@news.newsguy.com> <3114679241611162@naggum.no> <36047e88.439933611@news.newsguy.com> mail-copies-to: never Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * trashcan@david-steuber.com (David Steuber "The Interloper") | Does this mean that while CL can read CL and eval it, Scheme can not | read Scheme and eval it? well, no, it means that you need a whole different machinery to read Common Lisp than you need to read Scheme. Scheme was designed in the fashion of static grammars, and people frequently implement the reader in some other language. Common Lisp's reader is best written in Common Lisp -- it dispatches on characters according to a table, the READTABLE, and call out to functions that assemble the various types of objects. this is overkill per excellence for Scheme. also, Scheme's grammar is defined so that (foo 1 2 . ()) is different from (foo 1 2), although the Scheme reader cannot detect this difference. therefore, you will not catch very important errors if you use the naive approach to Scheme. (no, I'm not talking in the "standards purist" mode -- Scheme is deliberately designed this way, and second-guessing designers is a Bad Thing. of course, it was a gross and very annoying mistake, but the designers should fix that, not users.) | I was under the impression that Scheme was a dialect of Lisp. From what | you say, Scmeme is a whole other language (like JavaScript isn't Java). Scheme is not a dialect of Common Lisp. the common heritage, if any, is so old and so far removed from today's reality that we're almost talking about a missing link. Scheme owes more to Algol than to Lisp, in my view, just like Java owes more to Smalltalk than to C++. the syntactic similarity is irrelevant for meaningful comparisons. Scheme adherents want to tell you Scheme is a dialect of Lisp, but I don't get it. what do _they_ get from confusing people like that? is it a hope for a piece of the market that Common Lisp has created? some Lispers (well, at least one, but he's also a Schemer) will insist very strongly that Common Lisp is not the only Lisp to consider. the only merit of this latter attitude is that it makes the Scheme wish come true, but there aren't as many Lisps as there used to be 10-15 years ago. if you spend your time learning any other Lisp these days, I'd say you're wasting your time unless, of course, the Lisp is an embedded Lisp in some product you need to use. (this includes the sadly deficient Emacs Lisp.) | This brings up another question. It seems that Lisp is not case | sensitive. well, I can't speak for "Lisp" in the sense that it is something that Scheme is (also) a dialect of, but Common Lisp is certainly case sensitive. symbols in the COMMON-LISP package are all uppercase, but you would normally set *PRINT-CASE* to :DOWNCASE and (readtable-case *readtable*) to :UPCASE, so you could read and write them in lowercase. both |lowercase| and \l\o\w\e\r\c\a\s\e all have lowercase symbol names, so it's not like you cannot get it. also, to maintain backward compatibility, you can set the readtable-case to :INVERT, which upcases all-lowercase symbol names and downcases all-uppercase symbol names (not counting characters escaped with | or \). | How many people would be upset if a Lisp implementation came out that was | case sensitive? if you make the reader preserve case, many would object to having to write symbol names in all uppercase. if you invert the case of all the symbol names, you create a new dialect that doesn't talk to other Common Lisp implementations. amazingly, there is no standard function to do case conversion the way the symbol reader and printer does it, so you have to call out to the reader or printer to get that behavior. case is a personal preference in my view, and Common Lisp has done the right thing in allowing each programmer the ability to choose his own style. and it's not like it's a hard thing to change. | It sure makes string comparison easier. what does? case sensitivity or case insensitivity? I think the latter is strongly preferable when dealing with protocol or user input. btw, STRING= is case sensitive, while STRING-EQUAL is case insensitive. #:Erik -- http://www.naggum.no/spam.html is about my spam protection scheme and how to guarantee that you reach me. in brief: if you reply to a news article of mine, be sure to include an In-Reply-To or References header with the message-ID of that message in it. otherwise, you need to read that page.