Subject: Re: Lisp or Scheme?
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 05:44:49 -0500
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Message-ID: <>
Brandon J. Van Every <> wrote:
| I'm certainly not going to "upgrade" my language implementation choice
| every 3 years, as your analogy would seem to imply.  I do not believe
| in churn, whether Microsoft's churn or from other sources.

Interesting. That "churn" [plus the then-lack of a native compiler]
was a significant factor in my switch from PLT Scheme to Common Lisp
circa 2000. The PLT was cranking out new (and sometimes incompatible!)
versions faster than I could keep up!  ;-}  ;-}

| It took me 2 years of checking languages out to settle on Chicken
| Scheme.  Not interested in switching gears until it fails me.

I stuck with PLT Scheme for ~8-10 years, then switched to Common Lisp[1]
and having been happily using it for the last 4-6 years. [There was a
fairly-long period of overlap/transition.] As you say, I'm not interested
in switching gears again unless/until CL fails me.

The positive attributes of long-term stability in one's tools are
often underrated...


[1] CMUCL, to be precise, but most of what I do with CL is portable,
    and I try to remember to mark the CMUCL-specific bits with #+(CMU),
    so if I had to move to SBCL or one of the commercial implementations
    the transition would be pretty easy. But to quote you again, I'm not
    interested in switching gears unless/until CMUCL fails me.

Rob Warnock			<>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607