Subject: Re: Lisp & SICP From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 2000/05/18 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Shelly Somerville <email@example.com> | Thank you. Do you have a reccomendation for a Scheme interpreter? Since I read and worked with the first edition of SICP, I am partial to the _very_ good MIT Scheme implementation, which was also used in the book. Since then, the second edition of SICP is out and it uses R5RS¹ Scheme, MIT Scheme was no longer supported on the platforms I use (only Microsoft-free computers!) the last time I checked, and I have come to dislike Scheme intensely over the past 6 years or so. I would recommend that you ask in comp.lang.scheme, and request info on Scheme environments that are actually supported, not just toys or research vehicles. I haven't been following the Scheme "evolution" closely for quite some time, and wouldn't know which environments are the better these days. All I have noticed is that there is no change to the plethora of _really_ crummy ones implemented by people who get a fascination with the implementability of the language rather than its usability. (This is a reason not to use Scheme!) Please note that although "interpreter" is not strictly _wrong_, both Lisp and Scheme are usually compiled these days, and you are better off if you avoid interpreter-only environments. A good native compiler is hard to write and unlikely to be a crummy implementation of Scheme, while an interpreter is much too easy. Good luck with SICP, and if you decide not to hang around while you study with Scheme: welcome back when you're ready to graduate into Common Liop. #:Erik ------- ¹ Expands to Revised Revised Revised Revised Revised Report on Scheme. -- If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.