From the perspective of language design, Hissp strives to be more directly homoiconic, representing s-expressions as Python tuples. Hy is more of an abstract sexpr-to-Python compiler, with s-expressions represented as custom data types, rather than Python primitives.
From the perspective of usability, Hissp is very minimalistic overall. Whereas Hy is both much more Python-like in its user experience and provides much more of a batteries-included experience like you'd find in Common Lisp or Clojure (and in fact its standard library takes a lot of inspiration from both).
I consider Hissp as more of an interesting experiment in language design than a practical programming language. Whereas I think Hy is very practical and I've been very happy to use it for various scripts over the years.
That's not to say Hissp is a bad project by any means. It's impressive, and I admire its dedication to its own principled consistency. I just don't find it very practical.
The downside of Hy is that they've gone through several radical design changes over the years, but that finally seems to be stabilizing.
From the perspective of usability, Hissp is very minimalistic overall. Whereas Hy is both much more Python-like in its user experience and provides much more of a batteries-included experience like you'd find in Common Lisp or Clojure (and in fact its standard library takes a lot of inspiration from both).
I consider Hissp as more of an interesting experiment in language design than a practical programming language. Whereas I think Hy is very practical and I've been very happy to use it for various scripts over the years.
That's not to say Hissp is a bad project by any means. It's impressive, and I admire its dedication to its own principled consistency. I just don't find it very practical.
The downside of Hy is that they've gone through several radical design changes over the years, but that finally seems to be stabilizing.