what's wrong with scheme?
It already exists. It is called "Standard ML".
It's called Common Lisp.
Scheme needs exact irrational numbers.
>>4
Nice try. We all know irrationals don't exist, and even if they did they'd clearly just be a large finite sequence of rationals. pfff.
Smalltalk
c
what's wrong with scheme?
The absence of portable libraries.
>>2
This.
/thread
>>9 Keep your 4channel jargon where it belongs. You dumbass. You mega ass idiot. You can't even do that anyway. This is /prog/. Is there a Read-Eval-Print-Loop in Standard ML? Didn't think so. Get real. Nevermind, I looked it up and there is. But my point still stands. You troglodyte.
Keep your 4channel jargon where it belongs.
Get real, this "jargon" has been used IRL for a long time.
>>11 IRL has been 4channel for a while, this is something called the Internet, not web but Internet. Deformed retard.
>>12
IRL is where you talk with your mouth and walk with your feet. You may get some of it if you stand up from your farted-through chair.
>>13
No different from 4channel, don't you foot post on foot fetish /trash/ threads and use text to speech from your phone.
>>15
What makes Clojure better?
>>1
I would vote for Common Lisp. PicoLisp and NewLisp look interesting as well.
what's wrong with scheme?
Nothing, except it's too small language for some people's tastes.
>>15
Optimize your quotes, so we can easily see the posts you are replying to. >>2,3