Testing the waters.

[Chris Bitmead uid(x22068)]

>You and I obviously have different applications/needs for CL.
>
>I have ported code I wrote on LispMs to other Lisp environments, and the
>code was not that difficult to port.  

I didn't think the LispMs of old had a POS. This LispPS is not a blind
copy of the old LispMs.

>I want a LispM because it
>supports my development, makes me more productive etc.  This is why I harp
>on functionality and portability.  The end result may or may not run on a
>LispM, and I don't want to be tethered to one.  

That is why I want LispOS to be optionally able to run on top of Unix
or NT.

>So, I put platform specific
>code into one file (or multiple files) seperate from the rest of the code.
>I do the same with UI code, since UI code tends not to be portable.  

It doesn't work for POS code though. I've tried it, and it doesn't
work. If you do try you'll defeat the purpose of POS.

>>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.
>
>I don't understand this at all.  What is the LispOS way?  How does it
>prohibit my application from *working* on other platforms?  My view of
>LispOS is essentially a LispM with some updated bells and whistles.  Maybe
>your view is differnet and that is why we are talking past each other.

LispOS is different in that it will make maximum milage out of having
a POS as the way of storing everything on the system. (And believe me
there is incredible milage to be made).

Porting a LispOS program which uses this paradigm to a UNIX machine
with a UNIXish file model, would be a bit like porting a UNIX program
to a machine with no operating system at all ... You're better off
porting Unix to the machine and running your program, rather than
porting your program to a machine with no OS or file system at all.