Subject: Re: On Lisp From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 23:55:25 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3208895725377460@naggum.net> * Tim Moore > Perhaps "standard" has been co-opted to mean "works the same everywhere I > want to use it?" That property is true of Java, mostly true of Perl, > dunno if it's true of Python, and for sexy new functionality, not true of > Common Lisp. But it is true of each vendor's Common Lisp implementation. For single- implementation languages, this is so trivial to accomplish that it has no value at all to point to such examples. But if you think it is great for Perl, why, you _should_ think it is great for Allegro CL. If you do not, it is because you have higher standards for Common Lisp than for other languages -- which is probably not a bad thing in itself, but it means you are setting yourself up to feel bad about something that is great. This is not to imply that we should not work together to find a common socket interface, etc, for Common Lisp, it just means that some people have to do the work, and that means both using the existing interfaces and suggesting to each vendor how to proceed towards standardization. As long as people are waiting for somebody else to do tings for them, nothing will happen. ///