From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: LISP for Windows
Date: 1998/12/09
Message-ID: <3122212154827061@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 420487869
References: <366C724A.E2C7938@silver-wolf-tech.com> 	<366D5583.52A8D427@linux-kheops.com> <86d85t3785.fsf@g.pet.cam.ac.uk>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* 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 <gjm11@dpmms.cam.ac.uk>
| 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.