scheme vs common lisp

[Mike McDonald]

>From: Lyn A Headley <laheadle@midway.uchicago.edu>
>To: lispos@math.gatech.edu
>Subject: scheme vs common lisp
>Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:32:20 -0600
>
>
>A consensus seems to have emerged that we need to be practical.  We
>all want to beg, borrow and steal whatever code we can, right?
>

>RScheme's main competition from the CL folks seems to be CMUCL whose
>main strength, from what I gather, is that it is really fast.  I also
>_hear_ (please correct me if I am wrong) that the implementation is
>huge and slow-compiling with a GC that we would eventually want to rip
>out altogether.  It is also barely supported.
>

  I don't know where people get this idea that CMUCL is "barely"
supported. I'm on the cmucl-imp mailing list and there's always work
going on. Granted, most of the new work starts under Linux (We're
complaining about that????) but it does find its way into the other
ports, with Solaris usually first. (Lot's of new developement takes
place under Solaris too.) Sure, recompiling CMUCL is a daunting task
best left to the foolish. I mean brave! But you don't need to be doing
that either unless you're rewriting the GC or something.

>
>The choice seems almost obvious to me. *opens the flood gates.*
>Let CMUCL die and embrace the wonderful world of RScheme.
>

  Gag me with a spoon!

  Mike McDonald
  mikemac@mikemac.com