Subject: Re: Which one, Lisp or Scheme? From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 1997/01/22 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Chris Bitmead | There are free Scheme and Lisp compilers capable of producing binary | executables. So you don't need a commercial product. (Although I'm sure | Franz lisp is an excellent product). it may say more about my experience than anything else, but I grabbed all the (free) Common Lisp implementations I could get my hands on for my SPARC, including akcl, gcl, wcl, clisp, cmucl, and since I didn't have any experience from any "real" Lisp systems, didn't know what I misssed outside of CLtLn (n = 1 (akcl, gcl, wcl) or 2 (clisp, cmucl)). I don't want to go advertising any products, but when I got my first commercial Lisp system six weeks ago, I stopped working on my (Lisp) projects and sat down to learn the _rest_ of the Lisp systems, as documented in about 1200 pages. this has indeed paid off _very_ handsomely, yet it tells me that if all you have ever seen are the free Lisps, you might be in for a very big surprise when you get a Lisp-machine-like commercial implementation of Lisp. (however, I might easily have missed similar software for free Lisps -- I didn't know what to look for. maybe it would be useful if somebody who knows what to look for in each compared free and commercial Lisp?) #\Erik -- 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine -- a basic ingredient in quality software.