From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: XLISP, XLISP-PLUS and XLISP-STAT Date: 2000/01/18 Message-ID: <3157214986560286@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 574367936 References: <387F7923.5D8E0625@raytheon.com> <387F7969.ACE43DCC@fisec.com> <388391e8.11829039@judy> <3884C02E.E55BC6B5@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 948226472 5813 195.0.192.66 (18 Jan 2000 20:14:32 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879 or +1 510 435 8604; fax: +47 2210 9077; http://www.naggum.no User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jan 2000 20:14:32 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Robert Posey | Since there doesn't seem to be a dominate vendor/provider of a LISP | system, I doubt there is a lot of support for migration like there is for | VC++ or Gcc. there is. Common Lisp vendors take very good care of their customers, and if they can help you overcome your association with another vendor, they are likely to take very good care of you while in transition. that's why competition is so great. however, related to the question to which you assume you have the same answer you would have for VC++ and GCC: you don't _need_ much help to migrate from one Common Lisp implementation to another. that's one thing that is really great about the language: it's actually complete enough to do useful things in the language itself. imagine that! #:Erik