Subject: Re: LISP for Windows From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1998/12/09 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Guilhem de WAILLY | You can try the free version of OpenScheme (Scheme is an efficient Lisp | dialect) that comes with an interpreter and a compiler (that produces | ansi C) for Linux an d windows. * Gareth McCaughan <email@example.com> | I like Scheme a lot, but "Scheme is an efficient Lisp dialect" seems to | me like a really bogus thing to say. it's always interesting to see how something really bogus could be true, perhaps especially if it obviously isn't. so consider "Scheme is an efficient Lisp dialect". since the author of that statement, like most other Scheme adherents, is behind yet another Scheme implementation, I guess he's very happy that his implementation of Scheme is efficient. and since he, like most other Scheme adherents, have a chip on their shoulders the size of the Common Lisp specification against Common Lisp, it's only fair to assume that he meant that it would take him hundreds of years to implement Common Lisp and that he, as an implementer, rather than a user, prefers really tiny languages. I must say that I have found Kent Pitman's argument that small languages require big programs, whereas large languages enable small programs, to be very compelling. #:Erik -- don't call people who don't understand statistics idiots. take their money.