Lisp Scheme DifferencesSchemeLanguage and CommonLisp $($CL$)$ are about as similar asJava and C$++.$The following compares the standards for both languages. Many implementations offer extensions.Common Lisp: has more built$-$in procedures and macros, including some moderately deep ones like GET$-$SETF$-$EXPANSION has more built$-$in types $($like multi$-$dimensional arrays$)$ has a standard facility for creating new types has a standard package system has a standard object system $($CLOS$,$ the CommonLispObjectSystem$)$ has a standard exception$-$handling system $($aka "condition system"$)$ has macros that allow arbitrary Lisp code to transform code has symbol macros $($DEFINE$-$SYMBOL$-$MACRO, SYMBOL$-$MACROLET$)$ has compiler macros for user$-$defined optimizations $($DEFINE$-$COMPILER$-$MACRO$)$ has symbol property lists. has hash tables. has dynamically scoped variables $($a$.$k$.$a$.$ SpecialVariables$)$ which are extremely useful. has a working UNWIND$-$PROTECT is a very large language, with both the positive and negative implications. has a FORMAT function, which is something like C$\text{'}$s printf but type safe and much more powerful has a big streams library, including string streams which do $1/0$ to and from strings. has a sequence library for manipulating vectors and lists in useful ways. has a customizable read syntax by manipulation of read tables has the COMPILE function to dynamically compile source code to functions. has functions to compile source files and load them. provides mechanisms to control whether evaluation happens at various "times" like compile time, load time or execution time. defines evaluation order and specifies the result value for all, or nearly all built$-$in functions and operators. allows car and cdr on the empty list without signaling an error has built$-$in support for multiple values