Oscar> I would completely sacrifice the technical advantages of Scheme Oscar> or CL in favour of a common extension language used by other Oscar> free software products, and currently that means Guile. Michael> That simply is nonsense. Non-Guile Scheme implementations are at least Michael> as common as extension languages as Guile itself. Fortunately, at the Michael> *language* level, the Guile folks have since made sensible choices wrt Michael> language design, reversing some of RMS's insane original ideas, and Michael> basically making Guile a standard Scheme implementation. Michael> The trick is to use a standard *language*, not a "standard" Michael> implementation. [...] Be it so. My only concern is that from the user's point of view (the one who's trying to extend XEmacs or other free software) there is only one language to learn and not a different one for each piece of software he uses. If the different implementations of Scheme do not imply changes in the syntax of the language then I have no argument about using one implementation rather than another. Oscar