From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Why no standard foreign language interface? Date: 2000/02/09 Message-ID: <3159120499145849@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 583861018 References: <38A1C047.148D6466@raytheon.com> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 950135658 9210 195.0.192.66 (9 Feb 2000 22:34:18 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879 or +1 510 435 8604; fax: +47 2210 9077; http://www.naggum.no User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Feb 2000 22:34:18 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Robert Posey | Why doesn't LISP have a standard foreign language interface? because the standards committees failed to reach consensus on the many differing proposals and techniques before them. and that's a good thing, considering that since the standard was approved, none of the then current foreign function interfaces have survived, C has become the de facto least common denominator, meaning that C's calling conventions and types are now regarded as fundamental (they aren't and never have been), and any standard would have had to be abandoned, anyway. but why this clamoring for the _standard_ to solve everything for you? do you know any other language where the language standard has it all? (even Java and C++ fail this test on a huge number of counts.) #:Erik