Re: forth vs common lisp

From	lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth, comp.lang.lisp
Subject	Re: forth vs common lisp
Date	2012-04-20 16:54 +0000
Organization	PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID	<jms4bq$qct$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <da502667-ce7b-4ebd-a48c-809895490328@b2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <76bd17f8-fa38-4f61-95c7-0a950928dcc6@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <87r4vjhypv.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <jmqo03$tb$1@reader1.panix.com> <87lilqe7su.fsf@mail.geddis.org>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In <87lilqe7su.fsf@mail.geddis.org> Don Geddis <don@geddis.org> writes:

>lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> wrote on Fri, 20 Apr 2012:
>> But I'm not aware of even one implementation that is *completely*
>> conforming, bugs notwithstanding; and it is often explicitly stated in
>> the documentation how the implementation differs from the standard.

>Is this meant to be a meaningful criticism?

Of Common Lisp?  No.  It was only meant to clarify the statement I was
responding to, which seemed to suggest that the playing field was
uniform  and that all "conforming" programs would run without any
modification.  It seems rare for a CL program of any size to not need at
least a few bits of conditional compilation to satisfy idiosyncrasies
with the different "standard" implementations.  Again, this is hardly
peculiar to CL.  Nor do I think it's necessarily a bad thing.

>I think an interested reader can scan that list, and decide if it
>prevents any feasible danger for their conforming Common Lisp code from
>failing to run properly on that implementation.

And I believe I implied that well in my "criticism."

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 17:05 -0700
  Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-14 17:10 -0700
    Re: forth vs common lisp Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-15 08:49 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-15 10:02 -0700
  Re: forth vs common lisp Fanzo <cristianof6@gmail.com> - 2012-04-15 17:47 +0200
    Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-15 11:20 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-04-15 22:22 +0200
        Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-15 13:29 -0700
          Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 09:33 -0700
    Re: forth vs common lisp lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> - 2012-04-15 23:44 +0000
  Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-15 17:41 -0700
  Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-18 09:49 -0700
    Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-18 19:34 +0100
      Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-18 18:50 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-19 04:08 +0200
          Re: forth vs common lisp Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 06:25 +0300
            Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 19:55 +0100
              Re: forth vs common lisp Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 21:39 +0300
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 20:47 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 22:37 +0300
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 21:59 +0100
          Re: forth vs common lisp Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2012-04-19 09:28 +0200
          Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-19 01:03 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp kodifik <kodifik@eurogaran.com> - 2012-04-19 02:05 -0700
          Re: forth vs common lisp Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-19 04:29 -0500
            Re: forth vs common lisp Tamas Papp <tkpapp@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 10:15 +0000
              Re: forth vs common lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-19 08:45 -0700
          Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-19 14:15 -0700
            Re: forth vs common lisp Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 16:06 -0700
              Re: forth vs common lisp "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-20 05:24 +0200
                Re: forth vs common lisp lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> - 2012-04-20 04:17 +0000
                Re: forth vs common lisp Don Geddis <don@geddis.org> - 2012-04-20 08:34 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> - 2012-04-20 16:54 +0000
                Re: forth vs common lisp Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-04-20 17:03 +0000
                Re: forth vs common lisp Don Geddis <don@geddis.org> - 2012-04-20 16:57 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-21 13:06 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 13:20 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-20 23:14 +0200
                Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-21 11:04 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-21 22:12 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-21 15:19 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-22 01:01 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-21 18:35 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-22 03:13 +0100
                Re: FreeDOS CL "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-22 10:58 +0200
                Re: FreeDOS CL "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-22 11:01 +0200
                Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-22 06:18 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-04-22 03:43 +0000
                Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-21 13:02 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-04-21 16:29 +0000
              Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-21 14:38 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 11:17 +0100
        Re: forth vs common lisp Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 15:39 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-18 22:17 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 10:11 +0100
          Re: forth vs common lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-19 01:28 -0700
            Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 10:37 +0100
              Re: forth vs common lisp Ecki <ecki@intershop.de> - 2012-04-19 12:12 +0200
              Re: forth vs common lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-19 09:35 -1000
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 21:56 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-19 11:25 -1000
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 00:00 +0100
          Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 09:49 -0700
            Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 19:15 +0100
              Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 12:01 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 21:12 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 15:25 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 00:59 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-19 18:49 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 07:14 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 20:57 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 21:21 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 12:21 +0200
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-22 12:27 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 14:59 +0200
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-22 15:25 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-22 15:38 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-22 06:23 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-21 13:30 -0700
            Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-21 18:12 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-20 11:55 +0200
        Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 12:14 +0100
          Re: forth vs common lisp Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-20 16:56 +0200
            Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 19:52 +0100
    Re: forth vs common lisp Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 15:10 -0700
    Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 09:58 -0700

csiph-web