[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Of course, because one plays one's trump card early doesn't make it
any less of a trump card. If we trim DLW out now, it probably has more
effect than if we cleverly do it later.

In my case, I will rely on the technical resources of Lucid to help me
with technical issues in our discussions, much as senators bring aids to
Meet the Press. Similarly, I would presume that DLW would still be as
involved in Common Lisp as ever. 

I've worked with Griss often in the past; he has always been a little down
on Common Lisp, but mainly because of its size. He personally worked on
the precursor to PSL, which was a proto-PSL, not Standard Lisp.  Benson
claims that he (EB) and a few others completely re-wrote this proto-PSL.
Benson claims that Griss was on top of everything that went on technically
in the re-implementation and that Griss could probably have fixed any
problems in it. I think this says a lot, because Benson, incidentally,
does not like Griss.

I'm happy having Griss. But does this mean we should flush Kessler?
Kessler is easier to get along with, but lighter-duty than Griss. Both
are PSLers.

So the list looks like:


What about a Brit? There is Fitch, but, as I recall, he submitted a
paper to the last Lisp conference that was rejected (POPL took it, though).
He's into Scheme, 3-Lisp, dynamic binding, and closures over dynamic
variables. Can we deal with this? Also, what about Wegman?

I think the list above is pretty first-class (with the exception of the
first person on the list, who is only there because he can play politics).