Subject: Re: What I want from my Common Lisp vendor and the Common Lisp community From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net> Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 21:22:04 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3208368123997101@naggum.net> * cbbrowne@acm.org > It doesn't mean that such a process would be cheap or trivially easy, > just that if your code is built to be not _too_ heavily dependant on > Corman-specific features, a port should be doable. (Substitute > "Digitool" or "Franz" or "Xanalys" as needed...) > > Contrast this with, let's say: > > - Coding in ML, and depending on Harlequin's support, which _did_ > flag, with no answer available; > > - Depending on Apple's support for Dylan; > > - Depending on the developers of Clean to forever make support > available; > > - Coding an application that you hope to use in 2010 using this > year's version of Visual BASIC, when it's more than likely that > it won't be deployable anymore by 2005... And, if I may: - Coding in a version of Common Lisp that deviates from the standard for political reasons and whose deviations vary according to which developer team was last responsible for maintaining the sources. However, more important to me than code portability is knowledge portability. You can always figure out how to survive a version change if you have the right people already. It is harder to find people who are willing to dispense with their years of training and experience with a conforming implementation and have them come and look at some weird shit that uses weird macros and overly verbose iteration constructs just because someone, somewhere has irrational feelings about the standard. ///