Scheme, manifesto and naming debates
Thu, 8 May 1997 12:10:43 -0500 (CDT)
1. I like Scheme. Most of my experience is in Scheme -- a little
in Emacs Lisp, almost no Common Lisp. However, I'm not going
to push to base the OS on Scheme; the veterans on this list
have given a lot of good reasons to use CL instead, and it
seems like the bulk of our experience is in that field. We
should go with a Common Lisp. At some point I may want to do a
Scheme-based OS anyway, but I'm willing to play with that idea
on my own when the time comes.
2. A problem with a ``manifesto'' is that it needs to represent the
driving force behind a project. It needs to document first
principles. It shouldn't say that the project's *motivation*
is to write an operating system based on Common Lisp, because
Common Lisp is not a motivating factor for a lot of the people
here; any Lisp will do for some of us. It shouldn't say that
the goal is to break Windows 95 when some of us simply want to
get away from Unix. There's not a lot that I think we can
agree on as completely common goals: a Lisp-oriented free
operating system is about as close as I think we can get.
Dwight Hughes' draft is not bad; just strike ``Common'' from
3. ``LispOS.'' I liked NIL too, but oh well.