Lisp vs. Scheme
Mon, 23 Mar 1998 19:58:50 -0600 (CST)

> > 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.  

Not to mention the fact that they aren't standard.  CLOS is.

> 	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
> been). 

Not to mention that Common Lisp wins hands down on popularity, which
is important if we want people to try out this OS.

> 	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.

The only CMUCL system I used was one that seems to have been last
touched in '94, so I am not qualified to say much about it (except
that I hate that version).

> 	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.

Well, if the SchemeOS project gets started, it would have achieved
something that A CommonLispOS project hasn't -- results.

We're spinning our gears, and someone has already taken a step
towards making SchemeOS a reality.  I think that just tipped
the scales in favor of Scheme :).

> 		Gavin E. Gleason