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