different alternatives for lispOS

Marcus Daniels marcus@sysc.pdx.edu
25 Apr 1997 05:14:44 -0700

>>>>> "KM" == Kelly Murray <kem@Franz.COM> writes:

KM> JAVA is the competition, and we can win, because they don't have
KM> the productivity we can get out of an extensible language that is
KM> tailored for web programming.  Really, JAVA is a bad language for
KM> web-based applications! particularly large ones, the JVM doesn't
KM> help at all, simple animated gifs have replaced the reason for

I believe you are correct that Java is inadequate for web programming.
Further, I don't think it is really necessary to be so wedded to the JVM.
Folks can install free software pretty easily on platforms like Win95.

KM> A CommonLisp/CLOS subset is the right thing.  Recall we are not
KM> trying to build 1mb delivered applications on a floppy disk to run
KM> under Win95!  We have a whole machine to use.  Let's not fight the
KM> last war!

Do you mean to be as broad as "a featureful Lisp system with some OOP
features"?  I tend to agree that smallness should't be an overriding priority,
especially for server-side things.

KM> Start with Linux, and run a lisp based web server that has
KM> persistent objects on top of Linux.  Make everything use
KM> persistent objects, don't use the file system.  This means even
KM> source code is not kept in files!

It sounds to me like what you want pretty much already exists.
MetaHTML has a variety of database interfaces.  CL-HTTP has the usual
lisp dumping facilities.