Subject: Re: Which one, Lisp or Scheme?
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1997/01/22
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Message-ID: <>

* Chris Bitmead
| There are free Scheme and Lisp compilers capable of producing binary
| executables.  So you don't need a commercial product.  (Although I'm sure
| Franz lisp is an excellent product).

it may say more about my experience than anything else, but I grabbed all
the (free) Common Lisp implementations I could get my hands on for my
SPARC, including akcl, gcl, wcl, clisp, cmucl, and since I didn't have any
experience from any "real" Lisp systems, didn't know what I misssed outside
of CLtLn (n = 1 (akcl, gcl, wcl) or 2 (clisp, cmucl)).  I don't want to go
advertising any products, but when I got my first commercial Lisp system
six weeks ago, I stopped working on my (Lisp) projects and sat down to
learn the _rest_ of the Lisp systems, as documented in about 1200 pages.
this has indeed paid off _very_ handsomely, yet it tells me that if all you
have ever seen are the free Lisps, you might be in for a very big surprise
when you get a Lisp-machine-like commercial implementation of Lisp.

(however, I might easily have missed similar software for free Lisps -- I
didn't know what to look for.  maybe it would be useful if somebody who
knows what to look for in each compared free and commercial Lisp?)

1,3,7-trimethylxanthine -- a basic ingredient in quality software.