When comparing Xonsh (The Xonsh Shell) vs Common Lisp, the Slant community recommends Common Lisp for most people. In the question“What are the best languages to learn for someone coming from Python?” Common Lisp is ranked 5th while Xonsh (The Xonsh Shell) is ranked 12th. The most important reason people chose Common Lisp is:
Almost all aspects of the language are designed with interactive/repl use in mind.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Easy to understand, Python-like syntax
Xonsh uses a syntax which is a superset of Python 3.4 plus some additional shell primitives. Because of the similarity to Python, which is famously an easy to understand programming language, the syntax of Xonsh is pretty easy to grasp too, even more so for Python programmers.
Pro Extensible
Most parts of xonsh are extensible. You can change tab-completer, prompt, history backend, aliases, functions and pack it to special package (called "xontrib") and put it on Github. The logic are clear and documented well.
Pro Portable
The xonsh shell has AppImage that makes it Linux-portable.
Pro Command history on steroids - including output
Xonsh has one feature that can be considered particularly unique. It stores not just the commands you type, but their output, and doing a search on your history (configurably) can search the output as well.
Pro Cross platform support
Xonsh has native cross-platform support.
Pro Carefully designed for interactive use
Almost all aspects of the language are designed with interactive/repl use in mind.
Pro Very Powerful REPL with SLIME
SLIME (Superior Lisp Interaction Mode for Emacs).
Pro Condition/restart system
It is easy to recover from errors. Error resolution can be determined by the user at the REPL.
Pro Image based runtime
The state of the program may be saved and reloaded as an image, supporting safer modification of the running program. New code may be compiled into the image as the program runs, while late binding ensures that symbol redefinitions take effect throughout the program.
Pro Almost as fast as, or faster than, C
Some compilers such as SBCL can be faster than C or other low-level languages, and most compilers can generate fast native code.