Agreed. It’s notable (among many other things) for its comment in 3.1, ‘Scheme is a smaller Lisp, but it also suffers from the MIT approach. It is too tight and not appropriate for large-scale software.’ I’m always a bit saddened when I see a production system written in Scheme instead of Lisp.
His thoughts in 3.6 are very interesting, too. From his thoughts on method definitions, it sounds like maybe he wanted a language-specified dynamic editing environment. Either way, it’s sad that the Lisp world never came out with a proper successor to Common Lisp. It’s by far the best general-purpose language out there today, but it is not the best possible.
Agreed. It’s notable (among many other things) for its comment in 3.1, ‘Scheme is a smaller Lisp, but it also suffers from the MIT approach. It is too tight and not appropriate for large-scale software.’ I’m always a bit saddened when I see a production system written in Scheme instead of Lisp.
His thoughts in 3.6 are very interesting, too. From his thoughts on method definitions, it sounds like maybe he wanted a language-specified dynamic editing environment. Either way, it’s sad that the Lisp world never came out with a proper successor to Common Lisp. It’s by far the best general-purpose language out there today, but it is not the best possible.