From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!uio.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: Erik Naggum Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Common Lisp vs Scheme Date: 14 Aug 2002 18:12:21 +0000 Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 18 Message-ID: <3238337541655438@naggum.no> References: <3238155264451823@naggum.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 1029348737 3550 193.71.199.50 (14 Aug 2002 18:12:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@KPNQwest.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Aug 2002 18:12:17 GMT Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:37929 * Kent M Pitman | Other than churning more fees from the community and making people spend a | lot of money on process that is better spent on product, can anyone cite a | material difference it makes whether there is a present or past standard? | I'd be curious to know an actual documented case where it turns out to | matter. It matters when you have a legal dispute over a bug in an implementation that causes significant problems that somebody has to pay for. This does not happen in a language that is only used for toy purposes and nobody cares much about the standard, since everybody program to an implementation, anyway. -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.