CommonLoops

[kessler%utah-orion@utah-cs.arpa (Robert Kessler)]

My biggest concern with the proposal is that its trying to be all things
to all people.  It tries to support Loops, Flavors and everything else,
all in one standard.  Sure, if I were a Flavors person I could implement
something that looks like Flavors and would be perfectly happy.  However,
when I (or someone else) tries to port my software to another machine, I
have to bring along all of the baggage that defines my particular version
of the flavors.  It seems like there could be conflicts trying to
incorporate two different software packages that used different "extensions".
One of the nice things about Common Lisp is that everything and the kitchen
sink is present and thus a user knows what to expect as far as functionality,
argument order, etc. (of course its also a pain for those of us who want small,
tight Lisps, but that's a different story).  I think that it would be better
to stick to one version, whether its Loops, Flavors or some derivative (like
the HP proposal).

Bob.