|
From: David A. W. <dwh...@dw...> - 2013-11-27 00:14:40
|
I said: > > > I'll note that my Common Lisp implementation "just works", On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:29:49 -0500, John Cowan <co...@me...> wrote: > Well, yes. Common Lisp is a pretty thorough standard, and as such > it has a fairly large number of actively developed implementations, > as languages go: ABCL, CCL, CLISP, CMUCL, ECL, MKCL, SBCL. But that's > nothing compared to Scheme's seventy-seven or so. It's not the number of implementations, it's the lack of a widely-implemented standard way to invoke basic capabilities, such as a module system, exception system, and hash tables. Heck, not even macros (a Lisp basic) are completely universal. If there were 77 Schemes that agreed on all those, it'd be fine. > As a developer, I stick to Chicken and Chibi, and resolutely ignore the > (mis)behavior of other Schemes. I have the same basic approach (using "guile" as the list). Here's hoping that R7RS, especially R7RS-large, will make it possible to unify the islands. I think Scheme would be more compelling if people could actually work together :-). --- David A. Wheeler |
