Subject: Re: What I want from my Common Lisp vendor and the Common Lisp community
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 21:22:04 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

> 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.