[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Common Lisp

I just had a conversation with JonL which I found to be somewhat
unsettling.  I had hoped that Common Lisp was a sign that the Maclisp
community was willing to start doing a common development effort. It
begins to look like this is not the case.  It sounds to me like the most
we can hope for is a bunch of Lisps that will behave quite differently,
have completely different user facilities, but will have a common subset
of language facilities which will allow knowlegable users to write
transportable code, if they are careful.  I.e. it looks a lot like the
old Standard Lisp effort, wherein you tried to tweak existing
implementations to support the Standard Lisp primitives.  I thought more
or less everyone agreed that hadn't worked so well, which is why the new
efforts at Utah to do something really transportable.  I thought
everybody agreed that these days the way you did a Lisp was to write
some small kernel in an implementation language, and then have a lot of
Lisp code, and that the Lisp code would be shared.

Supposing that we and DEC do agree to proceed with Common Lisp, would
you be interested in starting a Common Lisp sub-conspiracy, i.e. a group
of people interested in a shared Common Lisp implementation?  While we
are going to have support from DEC, that support is going to be $70K
(including University overhead) which is going to be a drop in the
bucket if we have to do a whole system, rather than just a VM and some