Re: Lisp as a procedural language?

On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 09:24 +0300, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
> "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb(at)cesmail(dot)net> writes:
> > Someone at the PostgreSQL West conference last weekend expressed an
> > interest in a Lisp procedural language. The only two Lisp environments
> > I've found so far that aren't GPL are Steel Bank Common Lisp (MIT,
> > http://sbcl.sourceforge.net) and XLispStat (BSD,
> > http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~luke/xls/xlsinfo/xlsinfo.html) SBCL is a
> > very active project, but I'm not sure about XLispStat.
>
> You see PL/scheme[1]?

I don't remember who it was at the conference, but when I suggested
Scheme, he said that it already existed, and that (Common) Lisp was
really what was wanted.

Scheme is a much simpler beast. Both Scheme and Common Lisp are similar
in complexity at the core/"virtual machine"/interpreter/compiler level.
But once you load on all the libraries, object models (CLOS), etc.,
Common Lisp is much bigger.
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
ruby-perspectives.blogspot.com

"A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems." --
Alfréd Rényi via Paul Erdős