If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

[Paul Donnelly]

game_designer <alex.repenning at gmail.com> writes:

> Perhaps like Xah Lee I find, after many years of Lisp programming,
> these discussions increasingly frustrating and even, in some sense,
> amazing. We can speculate all we want about syntax and semantics of
> programing languages. What counts in the end are really the PRAGMATICS
> of programming languages. How can I do something with a language that
> is USEFUL to me? Will the result be good looking, and snappy or some
> ugly, dated looking, crashing application? For instance, last time I
> played with Scheme (drScheme) to explore some OpenGL 3D issue I was
> not impressed at all. One can debate the syntax and semantics of
> Scheme but in that particular instance all that was important to me
> was the fact that the Scheme example performed terrible and the
> threading fell completely apart when running more that a single OpenGL
> window. Perhaps this was coded poorly but I don't care. Scheme left a
> pretty bad impression.

One implementation of one dialect of Lisp worked poorly for one
particular project some unspecified number of years ago, judging by code
(written by you, no less) that may or may not have been terrible? I
appreciate that this was a frustrating experience, but I don't see what
lesson about Lisp programming we're supposed to be getting from this.