From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.esat.net!nslave.kpnqwest.net!nloc.kpnqwest.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!nreader2.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: command line shells References: <3C12D52C.85094C8@TCH.Harvard.edu> Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3216860232015424@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 23 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 04:17:13 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@KPNQwest.no X-Trace: nreader2.kpnqwest.net 1007871433 193.71.66.49 (Sun, 09 Dec 2001 05:17:13 MET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 05:17:13 MET Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:22117 * Software Scavenger > Are there any good command line shells available based on Common Lisp? * Alberto Riva | Try scsh, the Scheme shell. I was not aware that the Scheme shell had acquired a Common Lisp "mode". Perhaps you are not aware that Common Lisp is not a dialect of Scheme? The tendency among some people to answer with Scheme solutions when the questions _specifically_ requires a Common Lisp answer is very strange and very, very annoying. Recently, I met a person who thought this was OK because he could not fathom that "Lisp" was more than Scheme, and he refused to accept facts to the contrary because his professor had told him that Scheme is Lisp. This must be intentional by the Scheme freaks. /// -- The past is not more important than the future, despite what your culture has taught you. Your future observations, conclusions, and beliefs are more important to you than those in your past ever will be. The world is changing so fast the balance between the past and the future has shifted.