scheme vs common lisp

[Chris Bitmead]

Lyn A Headley wrote:

>  With this in mind, I propose that we can *significantly* increase our
> productivity by standardizing on RScheme as our implementation
> language of choice.  RScheme is quite simply a kickass language
> implementation under very active development.  Features extremely
> relevant to this project include: hard real-time GC, Modules, a
> persistent object store (already done!), Threads, an object system, a
> C interface, and good performance (compiles to C *or* bytecodes).
> Anyone who hasn't seriously checked out the language, go to
> www.rscheme.org (at least check out the /intro.html page which lists
> the main features).  They have done so much of the work for us!  As
> soon as somebody pops that sucker into Linux, the fun can really
> begin.

I always knew RScheme was good (which was why I suggested it the
other day), but I hadn't realised how far it had come of late
until you pointed out this URL. Hey, the thing now appears to be
well documented. That used to be the main problem with RScheme.

Hey everyone, I SERIOUSLY suggest you check out RScheme. I reckon
it is probably THE state of the art Lisp-like language
implementation out there now.

For me this now looks like a no-brainer. We should just go and
use RScheme.

-- 
Chris Bitmead
http://www.ans.com.au/~chrisb
mailto:chrisb@ans.com.au