CL functionality in SchemeOS

[cosc19z5@bayou.uh.edu]

> cosc19z5@bayou.uh.edu wrote:
> 
> > 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 would never say Scheme is good because it is small.

But many do.  One of the things I see flaunted as a benefit of
Scheme by so many is the small size.  Even the FAQ makes mention
of this in stating that scheme advocates are amused to point out
that the entire Scheme standard is shorter than the index to
CLtL2 (or something like that).


> 
> > Languages need 2 things to be truly good:
> >         1) Flexibility of Syntax (Scheme has this)
> >         2) Functionality (Scheme does not have this)
> 
> Scheme has plenty of functionality in things like slib. What is
> the problem?

The problem is that all these "things" are not standard, while
Common Lisp is.  Why would anyone want to hobble around the
net, mixing and matching various non-standard extension
packages when the same functionality is already available
in Common Lisp?  This is effort wasted, that could be better
spent on working on the OS/Applications Suite proper.

You sent me email about what you believed were advantages to
using Common Lisp (it would have been good had you also posted it
to the list for some debate), but I still cannot see any reasonable
justification for using Scheme.  As far as I'm concerned it's nothing
more than a burden.


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

Regards,
Ahmed