On Dec 27, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Steve Freitas wrote: > I agree, but when you're doing that project, unless you've got lots of > time and Lisps on your hands, you're going to make implementation- > specific choices. Continuing to do this without settling on a single > implementation will greatly limit both the ease of new programmers' > initiation and the availability of libraries for the Lisp in question, > and we will have pulled out a lot of good seeds with the weeds.
The whole point of using Common Lisp is that it's, well, common - that is to say, standard. If you're going to settle on one implementation, why not abandon ANSI too? There's a lot that isn't in there (coroutines or composable continuations, macro hygiene, a real binding-based module system, concurrency, etc.), and much that is that's useless unless you're trying to do cross-implementation portability (LPNs, to name one particular disaster). -- Brian Mastenbrook [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://brian.mastenbrook.net/ _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
