Hacker News Reader

Stallman does not like Common Lisp.

I know, but I just don't get it. Common Lisp sure feels closer to elisp than Scheme does, and I'm constantly missing things from Common Lisp when I'm writing elisp (e.g. read macros, packages or character as a type distinct from integers).

For me, at least, elisp just feels like a primitive Common Lisp while Scheme feels like a completely different language with a similar surface syntax.

My take: he did not like the added complexity in CL compared to Maclisp or even simpler Lisps. I doubt he is a big believer in Scheme either.

I wonder if he really liked Lisp Machine Lisp or ZetaLisp.

That's what he has used and IIRC he claims to have implemented CL.

But if you see what was missing in elisp: object system, closures, keyword arguments, ... That stuff was also in LML.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com