-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 21 May 1999 token@wuff.mayn.de wrote:

>matthew green wrote:
>
>> this is highly and grossly inaccurate, but i feel it expresses "scheme"
>> better than anything else:  LISP done right.
>
>I would think this attribution rather fits ANSI Common Lisp (which
>unfortunately is not suitable at all for a scripting language in
>a limited space environment though :).

[Hey my turn for irrelevant flame-bait]

Sigh...  the age old question.  For the un-lisped, the distinction
between Common Lisp and Scheme stems from the multitude of lisps which
roamed the earth about 20 years back.  The long wrangling over how to
combine the various divergent implementations resulted in two standards.
Common Lisp is more or less the union of all the lisps out there at the
time, Scheme is more or less the intersection.

How much of a difference in scale does this make for?  Well, the
Revision 4 scheme specification is shorter than the _table of contents_
of Steele's Common Lisp -- The Language....

With a focus on clean design, performance, and extensibility, you could
say that Scheme is the NetBSD of the LISP world...  Common Lisp, on the
other hand...  well...  it _does_ have standardised Roman Numeral
Processing... :-)

- -- 
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBN0WTcYkLDoBfn5jPAQEN4wf/TXpT2jv5grfrLo60IJy0VepZPL6mF9Ji
SXNHPu8zamH1ebJM/87mijFv4+wJRXGZbRDEOHX8D2eWj2FNmlX1kz6S0npE4Dt3
g5IWhap1EimoURl1dpeVIV0/5et0hFkmLks4W/dqWFEaUnIuzgTITN+kVhCP4mdm
8gAEKRJgJCaTp3syrWcVhPqmtFav327bD2hLptTyu9+LFsmj/mmYI1ZVNlDRbvEN
ohW1Auw8YyehyR+eZzW2ZyM6UswFT/U5Uq9awzc1pVxY59Qun97+9ZxMLGQunr92
iSgFzLrm1wgDFHaQsufmIEMpqPYx4XCyFB/VrrK813+eBMKWHbC4RQ==
=5aja
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----