For Scheme, there is MIT Scheme, GNU Guile, and Kawa.
For Common Lisp, there is GNU Common Lisp and CLISP.
There is also Emacs Lisp.
Why are there so many?
The more the merrier.
mit scheme
reference
guile
language gluing
kawa
enterprise language gluing
common lisp
deployment
clisp
esoteric deployment
elisp
rms
The GNU project welcomes pretty much anything. There needs to be a maintainer for the project who will submit to the protocol for contributing to GNU.
>>3
Why do you think that CLISP is for "esoteric deployment" while GNU Common Lisp is for "deployment"? CLISP still receives small patches regularly, while GNU Common Lisp is essentially unmaintained since 2014.
esoteric is a negative for deployment your opinion is bad
supported platforms esoteric doesnt take away from deployment https://clisp.sourceforge.io/impnotes/clisp-history.html
only a argument when the independent code is a unmaintainable monstrosity
while GNU Common Lisp is essentially unmaintained since 2014
you would of had a more valid argument pointing out how its maintained by one person with the last release 9 months ago
real argument if you could point out the exacts of where it fails the ansi common lisp standard Yes or how this one person couldnt do maintenance with the foundations
and this one person couldnt or forgot to close bugs https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=gcl
clisp also has a history of not supporting ansi https://clisp.sourceforge.io/impnotes/faq.html#A.1.1.4. its not lgpl either which means something for a minority vocal about deployments
>>6
I misunderstood >>3. My opinions are wrong. I am truly sorry for my mistakes.
>>7
happens to all of us
Why does the GNU Project need so many Lisps?
It doesn't need so many Lisps, but it has so many Lisps because there is something wrong with Lispers. Lispers are more interested in making new Lisp implementations than in maintaining existing implementations. That's why there is a proliferation of half-baked, incomplete, slow, and/or generally inferior Lisp implementations. You can also see this in the library ecosystem for Lisp (especially Scheme), where the same functions get written over and over again because it is "so easy to do so".
The GNU Project does not have 5 C compilers, 5 C++ compilers, 5 Fortran compilers, and 5 Smalltalk implementations. It doesn't need 5 Lisp implementations either.
There is at least one more C compiler (written in scheme- MesCC) and one more scheme compiler (written in c mes.c), in GNU Mes, where the goal is to have a minimum binary seed to bootstrap a GNU system and tackle the problem of trusting trust.
>>10
That's good news.