Re: Re: [Ilisp-devel] SLIME

--- Helmut Eller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill Clementson <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > Thanks for the clarification. Incidentally, what
> was
> > the rationale for using inferior lisp mode instead
> of
> > ilisp to "boot-strap" development? 
[snip]
> I think the reason is that Eric Marsden, the author
> of SLIME's initial
> version (at that time called SLIM) uses inf-lisp and
> not ILISP.  I
> don't know what Luke used before SLIME, but I too
> used inf-lisp.
> 
> SLIME is now good enough for developing SLIME and at
> this stage it
> simpler to add any missing functionality to SLIME
> itself than to make
> it work with ILISP.  The advantage of inf-lisp over
> ILISP is that
> inf-lisp is simpler and more robust.  Since we use
> inf-lisp primarily
> as fallback when everything else fails, inf-lisp
> seems to be
> preferable.

Fair enough. But, could you elaborate on where you
feel inf-lisp is more robust than ILISP? I know that
there were a lot of quality issues a while ago;
however, I believe that most of those have been
addressed in the last couple of releases. I would have
thought that ILISP today would be no less robust than
inf-lisp.

- Bill

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

_______________________________________________
slime-devel site list
[email protected]
http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/slime-devel