3 ms·
No. I would use Scheme where I need to have absolute control over the application along with the implementation. That includes any type of hardware hacking, ful
by mahmud 16y ago
No. I would use Scheme where I need to have absolute control over the application along with the implementation. That includes any type of hardware hacking, full-stack networked distributed apps, mobile apps, gaming platforms, experimenting on new OSes, etc.
Common Lisp is better on maturer platforms, while Scheme is like a little wedge that you can slip into cracks to open it wider, before you sneak in more and more Lisp. See how Kawa does Java applets while Common Lisp does the web server, etc.
Common Lisp is the 1-wood/driver, Scheme is the putter. To use a golf analogy. (and sadly, many of the people that advocate scheme-everything don't have messy problems; their ball is already on the green, so to speak.)
- lanolin 16y agoThis discussion seems to focus on the plain spartan Scheme standard, when -- comparing to CL -- it should focus on an implementation that contains standard-ish libraries as well. Although CL might be the whole well-stocked golf bag (1-wood, 2-wood, irons, wedges, putters, ball-cleaner, radio...), wouldn't, say, Chicken be a smaller but still fairly well-rounded set?
- mahmud 16y agoChicken is the size of Common Lisp, but without the benefit of standard specification or a community. What exactly are arguing about then?