Testing the waters.

[Chris Bitmead uid(x22068)]

>>Suppose my company were interested in developing LispOS in
>>this manner:
>>   Native i386 code,
>>   no underlying unix (lisp down to the metal),
>>   start with Scheme as basis language,
>
>IMHO Scheme won't cut it, it must be Common Lisp, otherwise why bother?
>I'm no Scheme wiz, but I don't think Scheme has macros (a critcial portion
>of CL IMMHO) 

Scheme _does_ have macros. Actually, (according to Scheme advocates),
it has a much better and safer macro system.

>and it doesn't have anything functionally equivalent to CLOS
>(also a critical part of CL).

It doesn't have CLOS in the standard. There are CLOS style libraries
for Scheme available though.

Actually I would vote for Scheme as well, with some suitable set of
standard libraries. (SLIB?).

I will go with the majority ruling though as far as CL vs Scheme.