Thoughts on the simplification of CLISP
[email protected] (Don Cohen)
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.clisp.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I have nothing against improving portability, but I was a little surprised not to hear some disagreement on this point: > 2. It seems like development and support of CLISP is beginning to > dwindle. If CLISP doesn't become Type 2, it'll quickly die as soon > as updates to it cease - due to rapid bit rot. History suggests otherwise, in that development was essentially non-existent for several years. If anything it has picked up in the last few years. Of course there's also room for disagreement on what "quickly" means, and I get the impression that some people view clisp (and maybe even lisp) as long dead already. My view is that clisp is in no danger as long as we have virtual machines that can run old OS versions, which I now expect to be as long as there are computers. BTW I have plenty of code even older than clisp that still runs inside clisp (using compatibility layers to interpret older lisp dialects) and I fully expect that code to continue to be used into the distant future. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ clisp-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clisp-devel