Re: Modernizing Common Lisp

From: Pascal Costanza (costanza_at_web.de)
Date: 05/09/04 

Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 12:18:30 +0200

Dave Roberts wrote:

> That is, I have no doubt that everybody can use Lisp's great
> flexibility to go around and hack up their own compatibility layer for
> things like sockets (threads are a bit more difficult if you want to do it
> right since they interact with things like GC that are deep in the
> runtime), but should we? Is that a good use of our time?

You're right that things would be better if such libraries would be more
consistent across implementations. I just don't think that the time is
right for this. The kind of standardization you have in mind will happen
when there is enough momentum. That's all I am trying to say.

To put it differently: Where in the technology adoption life-cycle do
you think we are?

see, for example, http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~fmb/articles/lifecycle/

Pascal 

-- 
1st European Lisp and Scheme Workshop
June 13 - Oslo, Norway - co-located with ECOOP 2004
http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lisp-ecoop/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Modernizing Common Lisp
    ... Pascal Costanza wrote: ... > Dave Roberts wrote: ... >> flexibility to go around and hack up their own compatibility layer for ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: fastest IPC?
    ... > sorry i forget to mention that i want to know fast IPC method to ... > use in terms of max throughput lower time to access other process data. ... since shared memory is a bad hack it would be good style to ... use sockets and see if it's fast enough. ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: Women cant hack it - again
    ... Real reason: to make life easier for women ... who can't hack a full working week. ... Let women become childminders if they want flexibility. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)