POS, OOFS, CL v Scheme, etc.

[Henry G. Baker]

> Again, I'm not against starting fresh; I'm just trying to clarify the
> various alternatives and trade offs. Unless there's a real hindrance
> in adopting Scheme or Common Lisp (or maybe improved EuLisp), I suggest
> compatibility with established languages is worthy of consideration.
> The Lisp world is already small enough without more fragmentation than
> necessary for technical purposes.
> 
> -- Marc Wachowitz <mw@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de>

I realize that 'fragmentation' is a problem, but most of that
fragmentation was caused by real needs.

I think that the main thing to keep in mind is:

If you find yourself tripping over the language more than once, then
stop tripping and fix the language!

I found _lots_ of niggling problems with CL, but they could never be
fixed because some committee somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, had
proclaimed that it should be this way.

Remember, the goals of CL didn't seem to include LispOS goals --
notice no threads or anything remotely reflective (except CLOS itself)
-- so some surgery will be required no matter what.

-- 
Henry Baker
www/ftp directory URL:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html