Separate Namespaces for Functions and Variables in Common Lisp versus Scheme

Question

Scheme uses a single namespace for all variables, regardless of whether they are bound to functions or other types of values. Common Lisp separates the two, such that the id

Answer 1

I've met a similar distinction in Python (unified namespace) vs Ruby (distinct namespaces for methods vs non-methods). In that context, I prefer Python's approach -- for example, with that approach, if I want to make a list of things, some of which are functions while others aren't, I don't have to do anything different with their names, depending on their "function-ness", for example. Similar considerations apply to all cases in which function objects are to be bandied around rather than called (arguments to, and return values from, higher-order functions, etc, etc).

Non-functions can be called, too (if their classes define __call__, in the case of Python -- a special case of "operator overloading") so the "contextual distinction" isn't necessarily clear, either.

However, my "lisp-oid" experience is/was mostly with Scheme rather than Common Lisp, so I may be subconsciously biased by the familiarity with the uniform namespace that in the end comes from that experience.