>Now, there are other reasons why CLISP in particular will not be supported. >There is a desire to be able to use other mainstream CL libraries, such as >Alexandria. Most libraries these days does not support CLISP, since it's an >obsolete version, and has had no releases in the last 7 years.
Well, mentioning specifically Alexandria (which can be installed with QuickLisp on both the latest release and recent repository checkout versions) doesn't give a good example. I checked — with a minimal care (well, you need to explicitly load ASDF3 before QuickLisp) I can run Bordeaux-Threads just fine on the latest CLISP release. It may be that if StumpWM starts using enough dependencies to outsource portability wrappers it may by mere chance start supporting CLISP. After all, CLISP stagnated in a relatively good state (and then there are updates even if there is no release). I do hope CLISP gets a release at some point, though. >StumpWM is not a pure CL application, and it can't be, for reasons outlined >above. I would also add that being surprised about _both_ adding dependencies and dropping support for other implementations doesn't get you anywhere… I guess bugs in 1.0 could be fixed in a portable way; but all the ideas for future improvement I have seen include doing more system interaction in various ways, which means that implementation wrappers become more and more costly to maintain. >The fact that none of them do proves that there is a very limited need for >it. If you really want to use SBCL without SLIME, you can always use rlwrap. Interesting that in discussion of StumpWM you managed not to mention stumpish. >> Somebody writing about that, should always know about Emacs and SLIME, >> and I am certainly using it, however your impression of how Lisp >> should be used does not make REPL un-usable, quite contrary, >> especially with the readline and completion built-in REPL in CLISP is >> increasing productivity, as one cannot do everything with Emacs. >> > >No one stops you from using CLISP as your shell. You can still do that >while at the same time running StumpWM on SBCL. And even a (stumpish-eval …) wrapper would work nice. I think CLISP happens to use less RAM, but web browsers work hard to make CLISP vs SBCL difference impossible to notice in comparison. _______________________________________________ Stumpwm-devel mailing list Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
