Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!silver!likes
From: likes@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Scheme vs. (Common) Lisp
Message-ID: <23200003@silver>
Date: Fri, 23-Oct-87 00:17:00 EST
Article-I.D.: silver.23200003
Posted: Fri Oct 23 00:17:00 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Oct-87 15:17:07 EST
References: <3431@sol.ARPA>
Organization: Indiana University BACS, Bloomington
Lines: 12
Nf-ID: #R:sol.ARPA:-343100:silver:23200003:000:639
Nf-From: silver.bacs.indiana.edu!likes    Oct 22 23:17:00 1987


As usual, Stan cuts right to the heart of the matter.  I should have
known better, but I was in bad mood about Common Lisp, and I let my
anger post instead of thinking.  The real differences between Scheme
and Common Lisp aren't "semantic sugar", but most of them are, and any
debate between proponents of Common Lisp and Scheme is bound to have
those come up lot more than the real issues, and neither side is going
to convince the other.  Next time I post something nasty about Common
Lisp (if I ever do) I will think a little more before I waste net
bandwidth.  Sorry about that Stan.

Kevin (the suitably chastened programmer) Likes