3 ms·

I am an outsider in this conversation (in the last 40 years 95% of my Lisp work used Common Lisp, 5% some Scheme dialect). I do have a recent frustration experi

I am an outsider in this conversation (in the last 40 years 95% of my Lisp work used Common Lisp, 5% some Scheme dialect). I do have a recent frustration experience that is relevant though: last year I was thinking of making a serious effort to use Chez Scheme more and I hit a minor roadblock trying to find a library to UUENCODE text. Maybe I was just having a bad morning, but it was frustrating. The Racket language had a ready to use library but I really wanted to use Chez.

spdegabrielle 3y ago
Just use Racket! (Racket uses the Chez compiler)
- mark_l_watson 3y ago
  I often do. I actually like the IDE, sometimes using it instead of Emacs with the Racket support.
- gorjusborg 3y ago
  This interaction illustrates my thought on the wisdom of supporting two language 'profiles'. It seems like the 'small' profile matches what I expect from Scheme's brand: useful minimalism. The 'large' profile seems off-brand. I get why it would be useful to have a Python-like experience (where 80% of problems can be solved with the stdlib), but doesn't that describe Racket? I'm not suggesting that a batteries included standard Scheme would be a bad thing. It's just that it pretty much already exists (Racket started as a Scheme).
_ph_ 3y ago
Lacking libraries can be quite a source of frustration, but would it have been so difficult to implement that functionality? In my experience, looking for a library and making it work often takes more time than to implement it.
- mark_l_watson 3y ago
  That is a fair point.