Language standards for LispOS

[Henry G. Baker]

> That's the danger of making big changes to a language without the
> willingness to go the whole hog and do it right. I vote you either
> choose between compatibility and doing it right. Neither choice is
> wrong, but half-way is a mess.

I know that this is a tautology, but if you have both immutable and
mutable cells in the underlying kernel lisp, you can easily emulate
Common Lisp.  However, trying to emulate immutable cells in Common
Lisp is a much more difficult thing.  Give the man what he wants: 100%
CL, and those that want something better will utilize the underlying
kernel Lisp.  I have no problem with multiple surface languages --
they're actually pretty easy to do in Lisp, so long as you have the
basic functionality.

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