A Summary of Project so far [Why ANSI CL?]
Breanndan O Nuallain
Fri, 23 May 1997 13:21:09 +0200
>>>>> "Dwight" == Dwight Hughes <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Dwight> ANSI Common Lisp will be the "standard" high level
Dwight> programming language.
Dwight> The intention is to make the LispOS the best LispOS it can
Dwight> be -
Thanks to Dwight for his summary of developments so far. I came in
late so I haven't seen any discussion of why ANSI CL was chosen over
other dialects. Neither does Dwight mention it in his summary.
If the intention is to make the LispOS "the best LispOS it can be,"
why not base it on Scheme? First class continuations and the Scheme
macro system would seem to me to be desirable features of "the best
Presumably, the main arguments against Scheme are that it lacks a
package system, an exception system and such. But couldn't these
things be provided for relatively easily? (I mean relative to adding
continuations and hygienic macros to ANSI CL.)
Does the choice of a Common Lisp reflect participants' bias as former
Lisp machine users, or has Scheme had a fair crack of the whip?
, , ,
Breanndan O Nuallain Applied Logic Laboratory
Phone: +31-(0)20-5252831 Universiteit van Amsterdam
Fax: +31-(0)20-5252800 Sarphatistraat 143
Home: +31-(0)20-6921952 1018 GD Amsterdam
Email: email@example.com The Netherlands
PGP key available.