Re: How Common Lisp sucks

"Larry" == Larry Elmore <ljelmore_@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Larry> No one's saying it something that should be done every 5 years. But if
Larry> you go to http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/, you'll see that the
Larry> process for C didn't just die with the release of C99. Nor has C++.

But I fail to see how Common Lisp is formally in any different. I
believe there is a standard committe with a chair and all. So nothing
formally prevents CL standardisation from goign forward.

That there is a lack of personel and funding is another matter. The
Common Lisp community, and the market it addresses, is not very
big. It is likely that the various vendors and projects will feel
compelled to change just because a group within the community feel
they should?

I for one do not recall ever having said that Common Lisp is perfect
or beyond modification, but I can easily see that standardisation in
the areas that CL is lacking involves a number of really really tough
issues and I see no indications that those in charge of the various
implementartions feel a dire need to invest in such a huge project.

But if you or anybody else feels that such an undertaking is easy or
fun or a fundamental necessity, by all means go ahead and work on
it.

I personally do not see the major problem, at least not when comparing
to the size of the task. Yes, it is mildly embarrassing that there is
no CL standard for stuff like multiprocessing or FFI, but it is not
keeping me from sleeping at night.


------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | christian #\@ defun #\. dk
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- petonic@xxxxxxx (Michael A. Petonic)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Comparing Lisp conditions to Java Exceptions
    ... post came across very critical of Common Lisp (that is, ... > to be explicit on this and there was no money to do that project. ... > when you don't see something in the formal standard written and ... No reason why I won't try to do so in the future. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: How Common Lisp sucks
    ... in the Common Lisp community. ... libraries that work across implementations that provide de facto ... This is one of the very few instances of behavior outside the standard ... to the language at all. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Qi Seems Great
    ... Common Lisp will simply trounce anything else in the long ... but having third party libraries to support the new ... ideas come along doesn't mean that the language itself will grow. ... Having in mind that the CL standard is rather old, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Running Standalone Lisp Programs
    ... On platforms without a command line ... into the ANSI Common Lisp standard is a very problematic venture. ... > for not including file system operations in the CL standard. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: scheme seems neater
    ... people are not interested in extending Common Lisp? ... ANSI CL standard is, for example, a system definition facility. ... the fact that a hygienic macro system doesn't exist for Common ... implementations of syntax-rules bug-free? ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)