Subject: Re: Multiple LISP's? From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 11:43:35 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Christopher Stacy > I'd be more interested in a CL version. One issue is: what > compiler/interpreter and development tools would be distributed with the > editor so that people could load extension libraries, and write their own > extensions. * James A. Crippen > Well, there'd only be a couple to choose from. CMUCL, CLisp, and GCL. This is a _very_ counter-productive position. Excluding the commercial vendors from this project will be the best way ever to destroy Common Lisp. Instead, write the Emacs on top of sufficiently powerful Common Lisp and cause the free Common Lisps to become powerful enough to deal with it. If you start with an insufficiently powerful Common Lisp, you will get the same kind of rushed disasters that Emacs Lisp is full of. We have to realize that the reason that Emacs Lisp is the way it is, is that the core language support is hopelessly insufficient. /// -- Why did that stupid George W. Bush turn to Christian fundamentalism to fight Islamic fundamentalism? Why use terms like "crusade", which only invokes fear of a repetition of that disgraceful period of Christianity with its _sustained_ terrorist attacks on Islam? He is _such_ an idiot.