[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: SHRAGE at WHARTON-10
- Subject: Re: Standardization
- From: George J. Carrette <GJC at MIT-MC>
- Date: Sun ,8 Feb 81 12:16:00 EDT
- Cc: KMP at MIT-MC, LISP-FORUM at MIT-MC
But: There is the LSB aka GSB method, which is rather unique to lisp
and very interesting in itself.
That is: (he can say it better of course) considering the various features such
DEFUN, to be low level primitives with querks which the local
system hackers seem to like. As long as a system supports
arbitrary compile-time evaluation and a user-extensible compiler,
[name me a couple APL systems which have that], then one can
do things "his own super-winning standardized way."
In that sense: "conventional computer language standards" are weak,
because they are informal. A lisp language standard
could be a formal (i.e. written in lisp), imbedding
of a recommended programming language, in the various
lisp systems available.
I would call this the strong case for lisp standardization. It is in
fact the usual way of doing things for transportable systems such as
Macsyma. Much of what gets said in LISP-FORUM really has to be taken
in light of this. When FOO acts like he is going to *die* if
feature X isn't changed, he is probably just being over dramatic.
I hope this shows that if you are interested in lisp standardization,
you can really do it.