[taylanub]

>Common Lido

Slipped by one column on your keyboard? :-D

I agree that a Lisp is better than no Lisp; I'd be more or less equally content if Guix used CL. Major Scheme implementations don't have much lacking compared to CL though, and the core is somewhat cleaner with less historic baggage, so I'm most happy with Scheme. (The standardization though ... sigh)

[wtbob]

Yeah, stupid phone keyboard and stupid me not noticing:-)

That's one major issue with Scheme: sure, anything can be achieved in a Turing-complete language, but each Scheme does things a little differently. Common Lisp, meanwhile, actually standardised all that important stuff.

And while Scheme is conceptually cleaner, CL feels a lot more well-engineered as a language.

[taylanub]

I wonder what makes you say CL feels more well-engineered? I can't think of any reasons, unless you simply mean Scheme's under-specification.

Scheme is not just "conceptually" cleaner if you ask me. It's very concretely cleaner. The naming conventions for one ("rplaca" anyone?), the clear-cut orthogonal APIs, the numeric tower with exactness/inexactness, and [insert pun about "hygienic" macros being "cleaner"...]