Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!iuvax!silver!likes
From: likes@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Scheme vs. (Common) Lisp
Message-ID: <23200001@silver>
Date: Wed, 21-Oct-87 11:56:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: silver.23200001
Posted: Wed Oct 21 11:56:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Oct-87 04:05:28 EDT
References: <3431@sol.ARPA>
Organization: Indiana University BACS, Bloomington
Lines: 15
Nf-ID: #R:sol.ARPA:-343100:silver:23200001:000:701
Nf-From: silver.bacs.indiana.edu!likes    Oct 21 10:56:00 1987


Yes, Common Lisp is seriously flawed, and you were trying to do
something abnormal.  It is just because Common Lisp isn't able to
handle such "abnormal" situations that I say it is flawed.  If you
look at it Common Lisp is just one series of kludges after another
(extra arguments to assoc, packages, no first-class functions, etc...)
On the other hand, Scheme has more of a unified picture of the world
(if you ignore versions with first class environments ala M.I.T.).
The world could do a lot worse than accept Scheme as the standard
"lisp" to use (worse begin things like PSL, CL, Franz, etc ...).

--
Kevin T. Likes
"Flames off the starboard bow, captain."
"All power to the shields, Mr. Scott."