scheme vs common lisp

Lyn A Headley
Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:57:08 -0600

>>>>> "Mike" == Mike McDonald <> writes:

    Mike>   I don't know where people get this idea that CMUCL is
    Mike> "barely" supported.

I got the idea from the announcement for CMUCL 17f, at

Although the group lives on (and is working on Dylan/Gwydion), the CMU Common
Lisp project is no longer funded, so only minimal CL support is being done at

>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.

We don't want a compiler we can't hack.  We do want incremental GC.

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

    Mike>   Gag me with a spoon!

a runtime system second to none.

I think it's great that you love CMUCL so much.  I'm sure it's a fine
system and I wish you good luck with your HPUX port.  However, it is
a less appropriate choice for crafting a lisp OS than RScheme.