Re: which LISP implementation (goal explained)
- From: Marco Baringer <mb@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:02:58 +0200
"david.tolpin@xxxxxxxxx" <david.tolpin@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Hi Marco,
what is untrue, that it makes sense to make sure that the code runs
under two implementations?
sorry, my answer was ambiguous.
1) i agree that it's good to make sure your system runs on two
differente lisps. out of sbcl/cmucl/clisp i think it's better to
make sure it runs and sbcl (or cmucl) and clisp as opposed to sbcl
and cmucl. (just because sbcl and cmucl are fairly similar to each
other).
2) i believe sbcl is production quality, and i'm betting my, and my
client's, time and money on it. i have had issues, and there have
even been a few cases of deadlines + shop stopper bugs which caused
me major pain, but i've encountered those situations with every
piece of software i've ever used. recent versions of sbcl are no
less, and no more, reliable than all the other major software
systems i have used (this includes 'enterprise' production quality
software such as oracle and bea weblogic).
--
-Marco
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget the perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
-Leonard Cohen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: which LISP implementation (goal explained)
- From: david.tolpin@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: which LISP implementation (goal explained)
- References:
- which LISP implementation (goal explained)
- From: arnuld
- Re: which LISP implementation (goal explained)
- From: david.tolpin@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: which LISP implementation (goal explained)
- From: Marco Baringer
- Re: which LISP implementation (goal explained)
- From: david.tolpin@xxxxxxxxx
- which LISP implementation (goal explained)
- Prev by Date: Re: which LISP implementation (goal explained)
- Next by Date: Re: which LISP implementation (goal explained)
- Previous by thread: Re: which LISP implementation (goal explained)
- Next by thread: Re: which LISP implementation (goal explained)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|