I have been following the recent discussions about Scheme vs. CL and even if I find it difficult to make my own opinion on what the best choice would be for XEmacs from the technical points that have been presented (call/cc, tail recursion, etc...), there's one issue I would like us to take into account regardless of technicalities. In the proprietary software world, there's a strong push towards a unique extension language, M$ is promoting Visual Basic and derivative VBscript as THE extension language for its products. Be the language good or not is not the point, the point is that by learning a single extension language you can work on a variety of independent software and this is a huge benefit for the users. The same idea is being promoted by the FSF: a single extension language for all its products. The whole free software community will suffer in the end if each of its major actors goes its own way, a minimum of consistence in our efforts is needed. M$ is one and that's its major strength, a suite of more or less consistent and integrated products with a common look-and-feel which lessens the learning curve for the individual products. We are several and even it that has rather been a strength up to now it may become a weakness if we scatter our efforts in divergent directions. I would completely sacrifice the technical advantages of Scheme or CL in favour of a common extension language used by other free software products, and currently that means Guile. I think that the technical benefits we would get by choosing CL or another Scheme implementation would be insignificant compared with the harm that such a choice would cause to the free software effort. Oscar