scheme vs common lisp

[Lyn A Headley]

>>>>> "Mike" == Mike McDonald <mikemac@teleport.com> 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

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/local/mosaic/common/omega/Web/groups/AI/lang/lisp/impl/cmucl/announce.txt

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
CMU. 


>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
    >> RScheme.
    >> 

    Mike>   Gag me with a spoon!

threads. 
persistence. 
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.



www.rscheme.org


-Lyn