What I like about Common Lisp is that it has support for both of them; both weakish and strongish typing. I also like the fact that it has got
it in the right order; weak first, as default - and strong later, if
you need it.
The other way around seems hopelessly old fashioned, unnecessary and
just plain annoying while coding.
GNU CLISP 2.33 (2004-03-17) ...GNU CLISP is a Common Lisp implementation by Bruno Haible of Karlsruhe ... * Removed Acorn RISCOS support.... * Removed support for Borland C compiler on Win32. ... (comp.os.linux.announce)
Re: How Common Lisp sucks ...support from the community, you should be able to quickly ... I'd like to write a Common Lisp program with a small GUI.... and could be undertaken on commercial terms.... (comp.lang.lisp)
GNU CLISP 2.33 (2004-03-17) ...GNU CLISP is a Common Lisp implementation by Bruno Haible of Karlsruhe ... * Removed Acorn RISCOS support.... * Removed support for Borland C compiler on Win32. ... (comp.lang.lisp)
Re: CL implementations and tail-call optimization ... optimization across various Common Lisp implementations?... I'd like to know which implementationI should be focusing on if I need support for TCO, as well as what specific directives or debugging/optimization settings are necessary to enable it. ... It's sometimes hard to find in the respective documentation, but it's typically enabled by declaiming the correct optimization settings, i.e., the possible values for (declaim (optimize ... (comp.lang.lisp)
Re: CL implementations and tail-call optimization ...optimization across various Common Lisp implementations?... which implementationI should be focusing on if I need support for TCO, ... tail call elimination than Common Lisp is not the best choice. ... (comp.lang.lisp)
