Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.lisp > #9652

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.lisp | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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 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 namekuseijin <namekuseijin@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 12:10 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp Isaac Gouy <igouy2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-20 08:53 -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 Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 04:34 -0700
    Re: forth vs common lisp namekuseijin <namekuseijin@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 11:53 -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 lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> - 2012-04-20 17:56 +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 Rupert Swarbrick <rswarbrick@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 21:12 +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: FreeDOS CL quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-06-06 16:01 -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

csiph-web