> Trying to keep too many options open can prevent one from taking > advantage of any at all. > > The Lisp community would benefit enormously if one implementation were > the defacto open source standard, and I think we should choose one and > put our efforts behind it.
While I do believe that languages like ruby, python and perl benefit a lot from having a single defining implementation (meaning they get the effect of a "standard" while at the same time being able to arbitrarily add/modify features at a rapid pace), Common Lisp is beyond this point. Going back is not likely to be easy :) > Do we want other implementations to adopt the fictional unified API? The idea to me is to implement it in such a way that "other implementations" don't have to (this also goes to why I suspect it may be easier to write a separate API with compatibility functions instead of trying to make everybody else comply). In other words, this unified API would support implementations, not the other way around (though obviously it would help if every implementation did not go out of their way to break backwards compatibility...). -- / Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.scode.org _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
