CL functionality in SchemeOS

[cosc19z5@bayou.uh.edu]

> Mainly, because too many are infatuated with the pretty picture of academic
> scheme...
> 
> Yep that's a bit inflammatory...

But perfectly accurate and in line.

What I've been saying about Scheme hasn't exactly been tactful
either, but let's face it; so many of Scheme's advocates have
their heads so up in the cloud about Scheme's small size that
none of them seem to wake up to the fact that Scheme is small
for the same reason a "Hello World" program is small -- it isn't
very useful!

I say this while being a fan of Scheme's elegance and simplicity.
Yes, Scheme is clean, yes Scheme is tail recursive, yes Scheme
is better in many ways, but face it, as long as it is anemic it
will never match Common Lisp in power OR respect.

Languages need 2 things to be truly good: 
	1) Flexibility of Syntax (Scheme has this)
	2) Functionality (Scheme does not have this)

Until Scheme gains both features, I will never understand what
anyone sees in it.


> 
> Yes, I have things about CL I don't like; OTOH, it does things, now, that
> scheme only dreams of. In the end, much as VI only exists to edit your emacs
> make file on a new unix, scheme only exists to bootstrap something like
> BBN's CL code in scheme.

I fully agree on the vi part (I tend to use pico if available), but
I think Scheme is a little more useful than that.  It's pretty good
for toying around with new concepts and for teaching purposes, but
that's about as far as it goes.


> 
> (Now if this don't get ya screaming, yer all brain dead!?!?!?!!!)

:)

Strong emotions, that's what we need.

Hey Schemers, prove us wrong -- start work in earnest on a SchemeOS.

Common Lispers, prove that the Schemers are the academic propeller-heads
you've always known them to be -- implement a Common Lisp OS before
they finish their SchemeOS (you know you can do it)!

Hell pleas haven't worked, maybe some insults and competition
will :).


> 
> William
> 
> 


Regards,
Ahmed