Subject: Re: When to recompile/reeval? From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 17 Oct 2002 00:53:08 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Thomas F. Burdick | It is a project with limited development means, and a version number less | than 1. Obviously it's not for you (at the moment). And this was a counter-argument to what, precisely? Should I shut up about where I think they should be going just because you -- what, felt bad or something? | Given that the primary developers use it for their day-to-day work, it's | unnecessarily provocative to say that it is "not intended to be a living | Common Lisp environment." Yes, you were unnecessarily provoked. That does not make what I said unnecessarily provocative. My God, after all these years, people still cannot deal with "provocative" statements rationally. Gimme a break! | Obviously, it is so intended. *sigh* It is the Common Lisp environment that is living when it adapts well to changes. If you force compilation prematurely, you force your programmers to consider the cost of changing a macro, and this is anathema to the interactive, dynamic programming that Common Lisp is so good at supporting. As I said, there is a market for Common Lisp environments that do not support this crucial element of Common Lisp, but people should know about alternatives and consider the fact that SBCL made an engineering decision between CMUCL and SBCL to force premature macro expansion. So somebody made the wrong choice. Unnecessarily provocative, my ass. -- 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.