>>1
Learn Scheme in Fixnum Days. It's worth learning Scheme and Common Lisp. But learn Scheme first. Look below for what happens to you if you do it the other way round.
>>11
Doesn't Scheme have some scoping wonkiness that necessitates passing more stuff explicitly.
What are you babbling about?
I don't write enough Scheme to know what those functions are,
No, you don't.
but any language that lacks basic iteration constructs is bound to lack more.
I agree. Scheme is not one of those languages.
I don't know about you,
No. You don't.
but I use a lot more variables than anonymous procedures,
Schemers tend to use procedures as first-class objects all the time. You don't seem to understand what lisp-1 and lisp-2 are. Scheme is a lisp-1. Procedures are first-class objects. Meaning you have have them in variables, and pass them to procedures. Common Lisp is a lisp-2, meaning "functions" (neither Scheme or Common Lisp have functions, they have
procedures.) are not first-class. It's not just about anonymous procedures, it's about any procedure.
and I'd like to make the case that's actually common be the easy one.
The lisp-1 vs. lisp-2 argument is a boring point of contention and isn't worth arguing. If you really find that you have to lose clarity in your lisp-1 code because procedures are first-class then go ahead and use lisp-2. Don't bitch to others that they should also use lisp-2 just because you want to.
"And such" is CLOS and whatever utility functions that aren't included yet by all rights should be. I don't write enough Scheme to know what those functions are, but any language that lacks basic iteration constructs is bound to lack more.
You seem to be confused. The spirit of Scheme is to be as small and simple as possible. And it is. Its language report is said to be shorter than Common Lisp's report's contents page.
tl;dr — enjoy your prolix programs and non-standard extensions, academicfag.
Just out of interest; what is the standard way to use TCP/IP sockets in Common Lisp?