Subject: Re: Help:  I can't find a simple CL function/idiom
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:09:30 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* ozan s yigit <>
| that was a 92 post. CL was not quite what it is today. :)

  It is still much more descriptive of people's experiences with Scheme.
  Even in 1992, Common Lisp was a real programming language suitable for
  production use.  It is unlikely that anyone would seriously argue against
  Common Lisp at that time as being "simulated simplicity".  That fake idea
  of "elegance" and "simplicity" has always been something to associated
  with Scheme and no other Lisp-lookalike.

| i think he only paid attention to scheme after he had already designed
| and implemented perl. [btw, an important distinction about him is that he
| articulates various linguistic aspects of his language, and why he thinks
| it works well for programmers, eg. or
| state of the onion addresses. maybe his overdose is something else. :-]

  I think the Common Lisp designers were years ahead of him, there.  The
  Scheme folks obviously were not, focusing instead on formal semantics.
  It is kind of funny how much Perl has "stolen" from Common Lisp (but not
  from Scheme).  Both Common Lisp and Perl aim to be practical and useful.

  In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
  In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.

  Post with compassion: