Subject: Re: Multiple LISP's?
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 23:12:53 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* tfb@whirlwind.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick)
> Okay, but you'd still need it to ship with a free CL, because I can't
> imagine any C++ programmer wanting to buy a commercial CL just to run
> Emacs, especially if s/he could just use the old Elisp-based one.

  It would probably not be a commercial product based on the commercial
  Common Lisps.  I would argue that there is so much marketing value in an
  Emacs running on a Commercial Lisp that is downloadable over the Net that
  it would far outweigh the usefulness of, say, a free Linux trial edition.

> Plus, as far as I know, CLISP is the only CL that's approximately as
> portable as GNU/X Emacs.

  I do not think it is useful to aim for maximal portability from day 1.

> So the first step would be to beef up CLISP to around commercial quality.

  Well, you cannot do that without the demand and a serious competition to
  catch up with.  Large free projects die when they have no cometitor, even
  though most of the propaganda for Open Source and the like is that people
  share their efforts.  Linux succeeds so well because many very good and
  very smart people hate Microsoft's hegemony so much they want to beat it
  into a pulp.  Take way Microsoft, and you take away so much of the "fuel"
  for Linux's and Open Source development that people will realize that it
  was not for anything else they __actually did it.  Good thing there will
  be yet a few years before they croak.

  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.