Fernando Mato Mira <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
| Rob Warnock wrote:
| > | Now _THIS_ is news. It means one can forget about Scheme for scripts
| > +---------------
| > Why do you say *that*? SIOD Scheme is similarly fast-starting (roughly
| > 2.5 times Bourne Shell to do "hello world")...
| Because it takes a lot of time and energy to get the Scheme people to
| understand not everybody can live in a perfect world, I am starting to
| get tired, and switching between CL and Scheme is too expensive (time+money).
| If you could get implementations of CL for any combination of features
| you'd like (speed, small footprint, JVM-compatible, C++ interfacing,
| continuations..) would you care about Scheme?
I honestly don't know. It's certainly a question that keeps coming up
for me, too. I'm currently *much* more fluent in Scheme than in CL,
yet whenever I bump up against "practicalities" when hacking Scheme,
I find myself turning to the CLHS for inspiration. I personally prefer
the "look" of Scheme programs (mainly cuz it's a Lisp1), but could live
with CL if I had to.
It's a question that I don't think I'll answer any time soon, but I
also know it won't go away...
p.s. Like most everyone who's dived into Scheme at any depth, I have my
own toy implementation bubbling on the back burner. I've been tempted to
call it "Common Scheme" (a Lisp1 subset of CL plus tail-call-opt. & call/cc),
but figured that would just get me flamed from *both* sides... ;-} ;-}
Rob Warnock, 8L-855 email@example.com
Applied Networking http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
Silicon Graphics, Inc. Phone: 650-933-1673
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. FAX: 650-933-0511
Mountain View, CA 94043 PP-ASEL-IA