Testing the waters.

Chris Bitmead uid(x22068) Chris.Bitmead@Alcatel.com.au
Fri, 09 May 1997 09:48:41 +1000

>re. CL vs. Scheme
>There is a lot to be said for standardization, and in part, that is the
>value of CL over Scheme or any other Lisp.  CL has all these wonderful
>features built-in, and standardized.
>I have programs written in CL, and they will port with very minimal
>problems to other CL implementations.  If I develop on a CL implementation,
>I can port to others.  In Scheme with this library added, and that
>non-standard feature added, you don't get portability.  Not only do *I*
>want portability, but I believe that there are many others that want it as

You won't get portability from LispOS to other versions of CL in any
case, because you won't have the POS ported to the other version of
CL. And POSes are always very tightly integrated with the virtual
machine and garbage collector, and application code.

You may get your existing CL lisp programs working on LispOS, but they
won't do things the LispOS way, so they fall into the general category
of how to get legacy applications working on LispOS.