scheme vs common lisp
Lyn A Headley
Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:57:08 -0600
>>>>> "Mike" == Mike McDonald <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Mike> I don't know where people get this idea that CMUCL is
Mike> "barely" supported.
I got the idea from the announcement for CMUCL 17f, at
Although the group lives on (and is working on Dylan/Gwydion), the CMU Common
Lisp project is no longer funded, so only minimal CL support is being done at
>place under Solaris too.) Sure, recompiling CMUCL is a daunting task
>best left to the foolish. I mean brave! But you don't need to be doing
>that either unless you're rewriting the GC or something.
We don't want a compiler we can't hack. We do want incremental GC.
>> The choice seems almost obvious to me. *opens the flood
>> gates.* Let CMUCL die and embrace the wonderful world of
Mike> Gag me with a spoon!
a runtime system second to none.
I think it's great that you love CMUCL so much. I'm sure it's a fine
system and I wish you good luck with your HPUX port. However, it is
a less appropriate choice for crafting a lisp OS than RScheme.