3 ms·

I wanted to, several years ago (between 2002-2004, in a commercial project, embedded setting). It was quite good on paper, with a simplified specification (comp

by jwr 13y ago

I wanted to, several years ago (between 2002-2004, in a commercial project, embedded setting). It was quite good on paper, with a simplified specification (compared to Common Lisp, which is huge) and several nice additions. I liked the simple object system. The problem was with the implementations — too few, too buggy, too few people using it. These days I would not bother with it, given that we have Clojure and its approach to concurrency. In really small embedded environments I'd go with something smaller than ISLisp, with an implementation that is easier to understand and possibly fix if there is a problem.

6cxs2hd6 13y ago
> These days I would not bother with it, given that we have Clojure And Racket. And a variety of Scheme implementations. The spirit/sentiment of ISLisp seems similar to traditional, pre RSR6 Scheme. But I guess ISLisp would appeal if it's similar to some other, older Lisp systems?
- jwr 13y ago
  Yes, for small things I'd consider a Scheme — though I have to admit that every time I tried to use Scheme, it turned out that doing relatively simple real-world things (such as dealing with files or network) was unnecessarily complex.