David Hanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > P.S.: I am just looking at SCL: what a pity that > > this work has not > > been done on CMUCL. (I would not mind paying for > > SCL, but I fear that > > it will lag behind CMUCL in other regions, e.g. Gerd > > Moellmanns pcl > > improvements.) > > This is a shame. The fragmentation really hurts lisp, > IMO. I'd love to write some lisp code for a work > project, i have that degree of flexibility, but it has > to do a substantial amount of threading and sockets > and be portable. So, c, here i come! Ack!! > > dave
I'm sure it is a lot of work to make CMUCL thread-safe and running on multiple processors, so I can understand that SCL became commercial (and it will be the first choice for me if I need to compute in parallel). But considering how much work is done on CMUCL itself, I'm in doubt if it will work out in the long run. (But I don't really know, maybe there is a straightforward way to incorporate CMUCL/SBCL improvements into SCL). Restating old wishful thinking of mine: the best thing would be if the CMUCL users could bring up enough money to buy the SCL improvements. (I know and have been told before that this is completely illusionary, but I would invest about twice or thrice the price of a full SCL license in such a endeavor, and if many other CMUCL users would be interested in the same way, who knows...). Nicolas.
