Subject: Re: Who needs another Lisp _standard_? (Was: Re: islisp) From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1998/09/09 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Jeff Dalton <email@example.com> | All I'm saying is that calling ISLISP a priori and CL a posteriori is an | unfair oversimilification. I'd love to see a _fair_ oversimplification one day, too, but in the meantime, the question is pragmatic: does this oversimplification yield any valuable insight or understanding of a complex issue? I say yes, because it is the essence of the two approaches, no matter how many _examples_ you can find to the contrary. however, just as stating any opinion at all about Lisp will be branded "unfair" by at least one person, and you're quite often that person, Jeff, most of the time, it's worth the trouble of stating opinions. | > I'm using "conservative" in the sense that it minimizes financial risk | > to the community (in my estimation). | | That isn't a standard meaning for "conservative", though. "conservative, adj, ... 3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions: traditional, b: marked by moderation or caution." -- Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary #:Erik -- http://www.naggum.no/spam.html is about my spam protection scheme and how to guarantee that you reach me. in brief: if you reply to a news article of mine, be sure to include an In-Reply-To or References header with the message-ID of that message in it. otherwise, you need to read that page.