I said:
> > > I'll note that my Common Lisp implementation "just works",

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:29:49 -0500, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> 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

Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT 
organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance 
affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your 
Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro!
Readable-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to