Lisp vs. Scheme

Gavin E. Gleason
Mon, 23 Mar 1998 18:26:32 +0100

> Then why pick Scheme?? If you want CL functionality, pick CL!
>  Mike McDonald

Good question.
	I've been looking at different scheme object systems, and have 
really been disapointed.  The ones I've looked at (MzScheme's and
Rscheme's), are toy object systems that don't come close to the power
of CLOS.  
	The argument that scheme is small and clean is not realistic.
Every "usefull" scheme that I've used has all kinds of non-standard
cruft in an attempt to make it a "real world" system.  LISP has
already gone through this evolution, and most stuff has been
standardized (notibly sockets and foriegn function interfaces haven't
	Aside from this CL has a huge code base of very complicated
and powerful programs that are largely portable between systems.  PLOB 
is a persistant object system already writen for CLOS.  There are also
a number of non-standard Object systems writen for CL that are by no
means "toys".  KR (for garnet) and LOOM come to mind.  So even if you
don't like CLOS you could find something in CL.  CMUCL also has an
emacs-clone that has already been writen, Hemlock.  Seems to me you
could save a heck of a lot of time just extending and integrating CMUCL.
	I'm by no means a CL-fanatic.  I do lots of scheme programming 
(probably as much as in CL), but I think that a schemeOS project is
doomed to reinvent lots of the stuff that is already present in lisp.

		Gavin E. Gleason