>>2845>You can (and I have) literally read the Scheme specification in a few hours
including all the SRFI? If your argument is that you can write a basic lisp interpreter as a side project or for a class then yes scheme is simpler but in addition to the SRFI to make scheme usable you have things like for example in Racket Scheme which have to implement lots of additional stuff to make scheme into a practically usable language (for web dev).
Scheme is like the C of lisps
Common Lisp is like the C++ of lisps
Clojure is like the Java of lisps
If you had to choose for example an embedded language for scripting a video game, scheme or lua might be good.
I probably wouldn't use scheme for doing modern web dev, because there are myriad of toy implementations. When you try to sell jim the JS developer on lisp, hes gonna flip his shit when he can't find the GraphQL library>in practice Common Lisp programmers use whatever data-structures are most performant for their applications
sure but all good programmers choose whatever data structures are the most performant for their task. Its not just about what a language allows but what it steers average coders into in. rockstars can write good code in any language>using mutability to increase performance when applicable.
theres a lot of strategies that let you rewrite functional code into mutable efficient code under the hood and most functional languages use these
Common lisp is a more complete overall language (other than concurrency) and Scheme is easier to understand, but as far as tooling, practicality, ease of use, and popularity Clojure definitely wins hands down. Other than emacs lisp
Clojure probably has the most lines of code written of any of the lisps today.