Subject: Re: How could they complain about lisp-scheme syntax
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:48:30 -0500
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>
funkyj <> wrote:
| There is no technical reason a Common Lisp implementation
| couldn't be made into a nice scripting language.

What do you mean "be made into"?!? I find standard CL to
already be a quite nice scripting language all by itself!!

Sspecifically, of the 379 scripts of various kinds in my personal
"~/bin/" directory, 61 of them are some form of Common Lisp or Scheme:

  31 CL-based:
     28 a /usr/local/bin/cmucl -script script text executable
      2 a /usr/local/bin/cmucl -core /usr script text executable
      4 a /usr/local/bin/clisp script text executable
      1 a /usr/local/bin/clisp -Kfull script text executable

  25 Scheme-based:
     18 a /usr/local/bin/mzscheme -r script text executable
      2 a /usr/local/bin/mzscheme -fm- script text executable
      2 a /usr/local/bin/mzscheme -R/usr/ script text executable
      3 a /usr/local/bin/elk -l script text executable

The only reason that Lisp/Scheme is "only" 16% of the total is
that many of the other 84% were written *decades*[1] before I even
started using Lisp/Scheme. In fact, almost all of the scripting I
do these days is done with Common Lisp [usually CMUCL], so I expect
that 16% to continue to grow over time.


[1] The oldest scripts that I still use on a daily basis have
    May 1986 filesystem dates on them, but I know that many of those
    actually date from circa 1981. [I suspect that when moving
    stuff around in May 1986 that I accidentally did a "cp -r"
    instead of "cp -rp"... (*sigh*)]

Rob Warnock			<>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607