To keep a standard subset for lightweight implementations (which are better suited for embedded systems, or for being embedded as a scripting language). How cool is this?

Edit: not to mention that a greater portability among the full featured implementations would be even more cool.

I'm so happy to see Scheme alive and kicking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PreScheme

I experimented with other languages/things before for embedded programming. I think forth would be great if it worked the way my brain does. Otherwise, there are good reasons everybody uses C.

The guy is running an Arc (pg's Lisp, currently implemented in mzscheme) web server on his Arm-based SheevaPlug.

http://www.midibox.org/ http://www.ucapps.de/

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=777666

It's worth browsing their archives (http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/classic/lambda-archive1.html) sometime, when you have a couple hours. Great stuff. (I'm only posting the link because it's a Friday afternoon. ;) )

I just don't usually like to read discussion in two separate places of the same topic. It gets tedious. I guess it's a matter of personal taste.

edit: Part of the problem is that I don't like the LtU discussion presentation as much as HN's, I'm sure.

Keep it simple, please!

I don't really disagree with you. That said, it's a little bit of an opt-out, in the same sense that arguing that C++ is just as clean as C because "you can avoid all the ugly weird parts if you really try" is something of an opt-out. (I'm not trying to comment on the relative merits of C++ and C (edit: or, for that matter, on Java <1.5 vs. Java >=1.5), so much as on the relative levels of simplicity of the two languages, just to make certain that's clear).

The language evolution has been good, but too slow.

Even the platform evolution has been good, they have (and perhaps still) set the standard for many types of libraries.

My main issue is the growth of the platform (to what, 200mb?). I would like a much tighter standard library. In an ideal world, Swing, XML parsing ... etc. should be seperate, deprecated items removed and old apis redone.

Anyway, it is all a matter of taste.

The separate config files had something going for them, because it keeps the concerns distinct.

It's called "evolution", in some circles.

for more information, see: The Evolution of Lua - http://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/~lhf/ftp/doc/hopl.pdf

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=733265

But don't take that as enthusiasm for committees.

   '''I happen to think mathematics would be 

... as well as the tools available to render those notations.

http://www.stixfonts.org/pub_geninfo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIX_Fonts_project

Committees degrade into uselessness when the discussion degrades into warring over features. Everyone has a pet feature, and nobody lets their pet feature go.

When you have a stated goal of minimalism (for at least part of the greater thing you're trying to define), then the argument to include this or that can be a /logical/ one based on whether it is actually /required/.

And one would think that implementing math is easy ;)

What did I (sorry, I meant you :) miss?

As for why people don't just use CL, Scheme isn't laden with the historical mistakes that Common Lisp is, Scheme is still capable of evolving, and "large Scheme" is much more approachable to beginners than CL because of DrScheme and other efforts of the PLT people. And some people just like Scheme's approach better.

For many aspects it's a huge advantage of CL to not having continuously evolve into something slightly different and only opinionatedly better.

I know both Scheme and CL, and I'll continue to prefer CL for at least the next decade coming, I think.

Meantime, I like all the effort anybody is putting in any kind of Lisp, and I always follow the different attempts (the different Schemes, Arc, Clojure).

Agreed on your last point, and I recommend trying Clojure out for some little project. It might surprise you how much more succinct it is than Common Lisp. Arc too, from what I've heard.