········@gmail.com wrote:
> It has been repeatedly and voluminously proposed that a cadre or cabal
> be formed to create a neolisp sublanguage -- a sanctioned set of
> add-ons (NOT replacements) for Common Lisp. (I prefer the term CADRe
> for obvious reasons.) I tend to agree with those who think that this
> needs to be done in public by a semi-formal elected committee.
Most wildly successful open source projects have a BDFL (benevolent
dictator for life) that keeps things focused and moving forward at a
good speed. You don't elect a BDFL, he emerges because he is doing
something so kick ass that others want to be a part of it.
While popular, the term BFDL is really a misnomer. It would be more
accurate to call Linus, Larry, Guido et. al. prophets rather than
BFDLs. Any Joe can climb to the top of a hill and preach a sermon.
When a true prophet preaches, people gather round. People begin to
follow. If the leader loses his chops then folks lose interest and
move on.
Of course in the technical realm, "preaching" means creating useful
working code.
If you yourself are not a prophet and you can't find a prophet you want
to follow then you need to learn to make due with the status quo (e.g.
pick a CL implementation) and get on with your own work.
Oh. Right. Sorry. I forgot that we'd all agreed to to just sit around
in church and pray for the nth coming ... Oh, and to dis any proposal
to organize the community into collective action. Forgive me... (What
page were we on in the hymnal?)
········@gmail.com wrote:
> Oh. Right. Sorry. I forgot that we'd all agreed to to just sit around
> in church and pray for the nth coming ...
No, we agreed to go write code. You made the mistake of listening to
Yegge and Garret and wanted to...
> Oh, and to dis any proposal
> to organize the community into collective action.
...form a committee? Paging Scott Adams.
ken (hoping you go write some code, not wallow in self-pity)
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
This is exactly wrong.
First off, if you think that I don't write code, you clearly have no
idea who you are talking to (which I guess is possible, but would be
unfortunate). We all write code (most of us, anyway) or we would be
reading rec.poker, or some such thing. So let's get it clear from the
start: You write code. I write code. Possibly even Bill Atkins writes
code (although no one seems to have taught him manners or, like you, to
figure out who you are conversing with before telling them in public to
go to hell).
Writing code is NOT what is needed now; Code abounds. What is needed is
not more code but buy-in from the community to a process for adopting
the best code into a new standard package. By "Buy-in" I mean at least
the help and blessings of the community -- having the community elect
the people to do the organizing is the only way I know to get this. But
"buy in" could also mean money to support the process -- possibly
paying some of the people who do the work. And by "process" I mean
people who will do the work (and possibly get paid for it).
I therefore hereby publicly offer $10,000 (in addition to my volunteer
help) to support the process if it involves duly elected (by YOU ALL --
NOT BY ME!) representatives of the community who have a charter and
process by which to produce a public open source standard add-on
package for Common Lisp. And I hope for my 10 grand to see an elected
committee and a package produced within a year from when I write the
check. These folks can choose to pay themselves with my money, and
hopefully with other community support as well.
[Note that I don't expect to be a paid part of this process -- I don't
have high enough profile in the community to expect to be elected to
the CADRe I have proposed -- and I probably shouldn't be as there many
better Lisp programmers around here than me (and, from the amount of
talk on this board, they all have more time than I do -- I'm too busy
writing code! :-) I expect only to help as I can and as needed.]
Okay, Ken, and everyone else. Put your money where your mouth is.
········@gmail.com wrote:
> This is exactly wrong.
>
> You write code. I write code.
You miss my meaning. Yes, I write code. I also cook, but no one would
confuse the crap that comes out of my kitchen with the works of art
that Thomas Keller produces at the French Laundry.
Likewise, while I do write code for a living, my technical chops don't
compare to Linus, Guido, Larry or Theo. It is not enough to write
code. You must create an awesome product with that code. Not a
mediocre product. Not a good product. An awesome product.
CLISP and SBCL are pretty good but apparently not good enough to take
over the evolution of the CL world like GCC did for the open source
C/C++ space.
> Writing code is NOT what is needed now; Code abounds. What is needed is
> not more code but buy-in from the community to a process for adopting
> the best code into a new standard package.
I agree that buy in is key. Where we differ is how to get buy in.
Forming yet another committee is not an effective way to get buy in
(IMESHO).
> I therefore hereby publicly offer $10,000 (in addition to my volunteer
> help) to support the process if it involves duly elected (by YOU ALL --
> NOT BY ME!) representatives of the community who have a charter and
> process by which to produce a public open source standard add-on
> package for Common Lisp.
I commend your fiscal commitment but trying to hire someone else to be
inspired is not effective. If you yourself don't have a plan for
exactly what you want to do then I doubt you will be effective in
hiring others to come up with the plan to improve lisp.
Of course I remember back in 1991 a schoolmate told me about this
exciting new operating system linux that was much better than minux and
would be as good as SunOS soon. I was skeptical that a bunch of
hobbyists could produce a professional grade OS. I could not have been
more wrong...
Nothing would make me happier than to see you prove me wrong by jump
starting the growth and improvement of the Lisp community.
Good luck,
--fj
funkyj wrote:
> Likewise, while I do write code for a living, my technical chops don't
> compare to Linus, Guido, Larry or Theo. It is not enough to write
> code. You must create an awesome product with that code. Not a
> mediocre product. Not a good product. An awesome product.
That's a VERY good point. Or at least, if the code isn't awesome, it
must do something no one ever thought to do before or is so hard to do
no one has done it nearly as well.
> CLISP and SBCL are pretty good but apparently not good enough to take
> over the evolution of the CL world like GCC did for the open source
> C/C++ space.
I may be wrong in this, but I think there is quite a bit of active
resistance to any one lisp enviornment becoming the de-facto standard
lisp. People seem to like the variety. I agree variety is good but it
must be tempered by agreement on vital points.
> > Writing code is NOT what is needed now; Code abounds. What is needed is
> > not more code but buy-in from the community to a process for adopting
> > the best code into a new standard package.
>
> I agree that buy in is key. Where we differ is how to get buy in.
> Forming yet another committee is not an effective way to get buy in
> (IMESHO).
True. I suspect there are only two ways this might actually come to
pass:
a) The situation gets so bad that both commercial and non-commercial
lisp folk agree on the vital necessity of updating the ANSI standard,
and take the steps needed to do so. I don't know what "bad enough" for
this to happen would be, but it would be bad.
b) A new spec is created that is good enough that everyone agrees it
would be silly not to adopt and follow it. This is almost as unlikely
and would be unofficial unless it gets sucked back into ANSI, but it
would be effective. I think this is more likely than a) however, which
is one reason I would like to see the status of dpANS3 cleared up. I
need to get back to that effort once I get enough time on my hands -
I'm not qualified to create a new spec from that but at least a clearly
Free dpANS3 might help make the conditions more favorable. However,
there seems to be very little interest in that side of things. To be
fair, I too am an unknown and not a logical person to propose such an
effort, so this is not very surprising.
> > I therefore hereby publicly offer $10,000 (in addition to my volunteer
> > help) to support the process if it involves duly elected (by YOU ALL --
> > NOT BY ME!) representatives of the community who have a charter and
> > process by which to produce a public open source standard add-on
> > package for Common Lisp.
>
> I commend your fiscal commitment but trying to hire someone else to be
> inspired is not effective. If you yourself don't have a plan for
> exactly what you want to do then I doubt you will be effective in
> hiring others to come up with the plan to improve lisp.
Pascal's idea of moving the CLRFI to cliki I think is a good one. Who
should kick that off? Anyone interested?
As for the use of a $10,000 kick start, I might have a suggestion
there. It would require a great deal of preliminary work and some
concrete, ready to include proposals for the standard.
Let's say we want the ANSI standard to continue being the "gold"
standard for Lisp. The big problem there, as far as I can tell, is
that the J13 doesn't have enough members to accomplish much and is
stuck in limbo. Well, it looks $10,000 might be enough to get a couple
of academic institutions onto the comittee for 1 year at least:
http://www.incits.org/meminfo.htm
So if "informal" work is done by the J13 member organizations and
academic institutions up until the point of near-readyness for
inclusion in ANSI, $10,000 might be enough to increase the J13
membership for a year to the point where effective updates could
happen. Admittedly I don't know all the details of J13 so there may be
reasons this would fail, but if it could succeed we could have an
updated ANSI standard again (at least for another few years).
Of course, the J13 members and some academic institutions would need to
be convinced to do the "behind the scenes" work, or at least polish up
work done by the community to "standards" levels, but it might help get
something to actually happen again.
Maybe no more practical than anything else suggested of late, but maybe
it will prompt a more useful idea.
Cheers,
CY
>Pascal's idea of moving the CLRFI to cliki I think is a good one. Who
>should kick that off? Anyone interested?
I can copy the whole website to CLiki if that is actually wanted.
Is it?
Might it not be better to just contact the CLRFI editors and see what
the deal is? Maybe start working on compiling the common functionality
of a few of the "Util libraries" (arnesi, kmrcl, etc) into a single
standard library(s) as a base case effort toward actually moving
forward with CLRFI? Or maybe something more directly useful like a
standard streams library based of the few (dozen) that are in existence
currently? If we can progress toward actually pushing through a few
RFI's as a community (hopefully with asdf-installable implementations),
maybe we can actually make a start on this.
In my (clueless?) opinion, maybe we should just spend a bit of time
actually organizing all of the code that is out there into standard,
crossplatform libraries. This is already happening for a few projects
CFFI, and Closer-MOP seem to have a good deal of community support.
But even with this, no one has gone so far as to actually make a
comprehensive list:
http://www.cliki.net/Current%20recommended%20libraries
http://www.cliki.net/Library
http://www.cliki.net/Categorized%20Libraries
Are three examples of a start on this each of which is missing some
fairly notable libraries.
http://common-lisp.net/projects.shtml
This is kindof useful except that they are not categorized and have no
descriptive text.
I get the impression from the rest of the thread that there is little
complaint with the idea of standard libraries so much as no one
actually wants to do it. Maybe the best approach would be to spend
some money hiring cheap collegiate labor to handle, reading library
docs, tagging the libraries, and organizing them somewhat sensibly.
This job could be relatively low paying, as it requires more
organizational prowess than technical (its wiki markup ).
Just my 2 cents,
Russ
C Y wrote:
> funkyj wrote:
> > CLISP and SBCL are pretty good but apparently not good enough to take
> > over the evolution of the CL world like GCC did for the open source
> > C/C++ space.
>
> I may be wrong in this, but I think there is quite a bit of active
> resistance to any one lisp enviornment becoming the de-facto standard
> lisp. People seem to like the variety. I agree variety is good but it
> must be tempered by agreement on vital points.
Variety, BAH! I guarantee that if some billionaire stepped up and said
"I'm going to plonk down $100,000,000 to start a foundation that HIRES
and pays TOP DOLLAR to the best language developers out there so that
they will make <insert favorite open source lisp distro here> the best
programming environment ever" and followed through on that promise,
that distro (be it CLISP, SBCL, CMUCL or some other) would without a
doubt become the GCC of the lisp world.
People do not want variety, they want the best tool for the job. If
someone threw huge amounts of money at making your favorite open source
Lisp much much better the other distros would wither. Lisp isn't
magically different from C. Those C and C++ programmers who switched
to GCC did so because GCC became so much better than other free
compilers (due in equal parts to the FSF guidance and Cygwin putting
some commercial muscle behind GCC for several years).
The reason there is not one dominant free lisp distro is that none of
them is that much better than the others. Sure, CMUCL and SBCL are
faster than CLISP but I use CLISP because it is easy to install on
windows (just use the cygwin installer).
Just look at SLIME. Emacs has 'inferior-lisp' mode and that other one
I tried but now I can't even remember it's name but most everyone on
emacs uses SLIME because it is so much better.
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: A Gentle proposal: Coup d'thud
Date:
Message-ID: <87hd4nid4a.fsf@flarge.here>
"funkyj" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> People do not want variety, they want the best tool for the job.
And they use GCC because of that? Or maybe because they have no choice
at all? And because the GCC people keep everything undocumented?
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
> "funkyj" <······@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > People do not want variety, they want the best tool for the job.
> And they use GCC because of that? Or maybe because they have no choice
> at all?
A lot of people certainly did do it because there was little real
choice. I remember in 1999 if you wanted an open-source C++ compiler
GCC was really the only choice.
> And because the GCC people keep everything undocumented?
The amount of internal documentation of GCC is high, and most of it is
quite good. The free Lisp implementations are not as good in this
regard.
Still, what people want is quality implementations. If all free common
lisp implementations were great then no-one would care that there are
so many of them. Similarly if one of them was great few would care
that there is only one, though I for one would worry a bit. The problem
is that the existing implementations all have problems.
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: A Gentle proposal: Coup d'thud
Date:
Message-ID: <873bg6rsuq.fsf@flarge.here>
"Rob Thorpe" <·············@antenova.com> writes:
>
>> And because the GCC people keep everything undocumented?
>
> The amount of internal documentation of GCC is high, and most of it is
> quite good. The free Lisp implementations are not as good in this
> regard.
Ok, let's getting a bit more off-topic here. Tell me where to find an
actual documentation of the exception handling on AMD 64-but
machines.
>
>
> Still, what people want is quality implementations. If all free common
> lisp implementations were great then no-one would care that there are
> so many of them. Similarly if one of them was great few would care
> that there is only one, though I for one would worry a bit. The problem
> is that the existing implementations all have problems.
What problems? Name them, just writing "they all have problems" is as
unspecific as can be. I'm using SBCL for quite some time now have
compiled it over and over again and it mostly works. There are some
problems sometimes, but the same is true with GCC also.
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
> "Rob Thorpe" <·············@antenova.com> writes:
>
> >
> >> And because the GCC people keep everything undocumented?
> >
> > The amount of internal documentation of GCC is high, and most of it is
> > quite good. The free Lisp implementations are not as good in this
> > regard.
> Ok, let's getting a bit more off-topic here. Tell me where to find an
> actual documentation of the exception handling on AMD 64-but
> machines.
:) I have no idea. For a slightly amusing slant on problems like these
read the thread "linux api" here
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=forum&roomID=11
> > Still, what people want is quality implementations. If all free common
> > lisp implementations were great then no-one would care that there are
> > so many of them. Similarly if one of them was great few would care
> > that there is only one, though I for one would worry a bit. The problem
> > is that the existing implementations all have problems.
> What problems? Name them, just writing "they all have problems" is as
> unspecific as can be. I'm using SBCL for quite some time now have
> compiled it over and over again and it mostly works. There are some
> problems sometimes, but the same is true with GCC also.
Other current threads on c.l.l cover the topic quite well, amongst lots
of noise.
From: Bill Atkins
Subject: Re: A Gentle proposal: Coup d'thud
Date:
Message-ID: <87wtdj6l3p.fsf@rpi.edu>
"funkyj" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> People do not want variety, they want the best tool for the job. If
"The job," unfortunately, encompasses a whole variety of different
situations.
--
"...and when, another time, I discovered that he considered not
unworthy of reflection in one of those mirrors of absolute truth which
were his writings a remark similar to one which I had had occasion to
make about our friend M. Legrandin, ...then it was suddenly revealed
to me that my own humble existence and the realms of the true were
less widely separated than I had supposed, that at certain points they
actually collided, and in my newfound confidence and joy, I had wept
upon his printed page as in the arms of a long-lost father."
"funkyj" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> Variety, BAH! I guarantee that if some billionaire stepped up and said
> "I'm going to plonk down $100,000,000 to start a foundation that HIRES
> and pays TOP DOLLAR to the best language developers out there so that
> they will make <insert favorite open source lisp distro here> the best
> programming environment ever" and followed through on that promise,
> that distro (be it CLISP, SBCL, CMUCL or some other) would without a
> doubt become the GCC of the lisp world. [...]
And this very same implementation would be perfect to run both on my
PDA and on a 10,000 CPU cluster?
How many different versions of Allegro does Franz sell?
We could take all the free lisp implementations and call them by the
same name, eg: TOOCL (The Only One Common Lisp).
We'd have: TOOCL/python(*) option,
TOOCL/vm option,
TOOCL/xyz option, etc.
(*) python, the compiler, not the language.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
HEALTH WARNING: Care should be taken when lifting this product,
since its mass, and thus its weight, is dependent on its velocity
relative to the user.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> "funkyj" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> > Variety, BAH! I guarantee that if some billionaire stepped up and said
> > "I'm going to plonk down $100,000,000 to start a foundation that HIRES
> > and pays TOP DOLLAR to the best language developers out there so that
> > they will make <insert favorite open source lisp distro here> the best
> > programming environment ever" and followed through on that promise,
> > that distro (be it CLISP, SBCL, CMUCL or some other) would without a
> > doubt become the GCC of the lisp world. [...]
>
> And this very same implementation would be perfect to run both on my
> PDA and on a 10,000 CPU cluster?
to make discussions easier lets call my hypothetical lisp foundation
SuperCL.
Probably not but it is very possible that something similar to the
linux world would develop. The is a workstation flavor of linux that
is very widely used and there are forked project for specialty
platforms like PDAs and giant clusters. Generally these specialty
versions of linux try only to change what is necessary to make linux
work well on their platform.
Also, I"m not saying that their wouldn't be specialty lisps for small
niches but that SuperCL would dominate the workstation open source lisp
market. It would also likely dominate the super computer and cluster
market.
Consider the various benchmark threads we've seen in this newsgroup.
If SuperCL was optimized so that it was faster than Java (e.g. the
cellular automata thread last month) and as fast as Ocaml (e.g.
harrop's ray tracing example), and had the following extensions:
* call/cc
* syntax case macros (not replacing CL macros but in addition to)
* <your favorite FFI>
* <your most wished for item here>
and worked well on these platforms:
* cygwin
* native Windows XP/NT
* linux
* mac
* BSD
Are you telling me you would use CLISP, CMUCL, SBCL or some other open
source lisp?
I"m mean sure, lots of people buy Oracle or DB2 but if you want a free
open source SQL you get mySQL. If you want a free web server you get
Apache. If either of these were merely "good", alternatives would
spring up. Because they kick ass people consider it a better use of
their time to contribute to these projects rather than start competing
projects.
Of course this discussion that I started about SuperCL is not very
useful as it is unlikely someone will decide to pour millions of
dollars into an open source lisp foundation as an act of charity.
There are plenty of other charity causes that would give the donor much
more emotional satisfaction for his $100 million. Don't let me waste
too much of your time :^)
> How many different versions of Allegro does Franz sell?
I dunno. As purely a newbie hobbyist I haven't ventured into the realm
of commercial lisp. You tell me, how many versions do they sell?
"funkyj" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> Are you telling me you would use CLISP, CMUCL, SBCL or some other open
> source lisp?
No, this not what I'm telling. What I'm telling, is that the offer
you'd get under one name SuperCL, you are getting it right now with
different names CLISP, CMUCL, SBCL, OpenMCL, etc.
There is the technical problem of defining interfaces between modules.
What we call COMMON-LISP and defines the interface between some
low-level modules called CLISP, CMUCL, etc, and the higher level
modules called "libraries", you'd still have to have it in a SuperCL
project.
For example, when you download the LispBox, you've got the choice of
the lowlevel module you want to use, and of the platform you want to
use. You get integrated into one LispBox name, an IDE, a couple of
libraries, some random implementation of the COMMON-LISP API, for some
random platform.
We already have the situation you want, only missing the name, and
being realistical, we don't have those $1e8 to pay the administrative
body to federate all the free hackers who are developing organically
this SuperCL without a name. The only thing we have, is a couple of
API definitions: COMMON-LISP, Closer-to-MOP, CFFI, etc, and this is
all we need, technically. Perhaps we need a new name for all?
http;//www.common-lisp.net is not a good name? Go create a
http://www.supercl.com name and make a SuperCL distribution!
If you want to compare the free CL situation with the Linux situation,
we could say that indeed we're like Linux, but just before the first
distribution: people have to download the kernel, and the GNU tools,
and to compile and integrate them themselves.
The LispBox is one first distribution.
(In the mean time, if you inherit some $1e8, don't hesitate to finance
us Lisp hacker to improve the modules needed to build a SuperCl
distribution ;-)
>> How many different versions of Allegro does Franz sell?
>
> I dunno. As purely a newbie hobbyist I haven't ventured into the realm
> of commercial lisp. You tell me, how many versions do they sell?
There's at least:
- Allegro CL 7.0 Student Edition
- Allegro CL 8.0 Professional Edition
- Allegro CL 8.0 Enterprise 32 Edition
- Allegro CL 8.0 Enterprise 64 Edition
- Allegro CL 8.0 Enterprise 64 Platinum Edition
- some more Add-On products (optional libraries!)
Each declined on several platforms.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
This is a signature virus. Add me to your signature and help me to live.
········@gmail.com wrote:
> This is exactly wrong.
>
> First off, if you think that I don't write code, you clearly have no
> idea who you are talking to (which I guess is possible, but would be
> unfortunate).
Nope. Never noticed you until you snapped like a twig when the whole
world did throw themselves at your feet. Get used to it because you are
so exactly wrong: about two people on c.l.l write code.
> We all write code (most of us, anyway) or we would be
> reading rec.poker, or some such thing. So let's get it clear from the
> start: You write code. I write code. Possibly even Bill Atkins writes
> code (although no one seems to have taught him manners or, like you, to
> figure out who you are conversing with before telling them in public to
> go to hell).
Aw, jeez, this is Usenet. Get over it.
>
> Okay, Ken, and everyone else. Put your money where your mouth is.
>
$10k? Very impressive. Good for you. LispNYC is about to waste $4500 on
something related. Ron Garret is looking for a place to spend his
fortune. Maybe you all should talk. You and Ron on a committee should do
great.
As for my Incredibly Shrinking money is committed to keeping me alive
until I can ship a "Win Big With Lisp". That means I am writing code,
btw, some of which is a universal CL GUI. Eat your heart out. :)
ken
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
········@gmail.com wrote:
> code (although no one seems to have taught him manners or, like you, to
> figure out who you are conversing with before telling them in public to
> go to hell).
Then use your name.
<········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh. Right. Sorry. I forgot that we'd all agreed to to just sit around
> in church and pray for the nth coming ...
Heretic! We are to pray for the elt coming... You nth'ers have
everything backwards, you know!
> Oh, and to dis any proposal to organize the community into collective
> action. Forgive me... (What page were we on in the hymnal?)
You were on page 36 and in the wrong book.
(My apologies to everyone... I'm going back to learning and immensely
enjoying Lisp, warts and all.)
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
From: Bill Atkins
Subject: Re: A Gentle proposal: Coup d'thud
Date:
Message-ID: <87k69mjibx.fsf@rpi.edu>
········@gmail.com writes:
> Oh. Right. Sorry. I forgot that we'd all agreed to to just sit around
> in church and pray for the nth coming ... Oh, and to dis any proposal
> to organize the community into collective action. Forgive me... (What
> page were we on in the hymnal?)
That's an interesting perspective. An individual with no obvious
credentials comes along and proposes to do something that's been done
in the past to little avail (cf. CLRFI) and which, in the minds of
many Lispers, may or may not even be a worthwhile goal. The community
largely ignores this individual and somehow this is proof that there
is something deeply wrong with the Lisp community. Go away.
"Bill Atkins" <············@rpi.edu> wrote in message
···················@rpi.edu...
> ········@gmail.com writes:
>
>> Oh. Right. Sorry. I forgot that we'd all agreed to to just sit around
>> in church and pray for the nth coming ... Oh, and to dis any proposal
>> to organize the community into collective action. Forgive me... (What
>> page were we on in the hymnal?)
>
> That's an interesting perspective. An individual with no obvious
> credentials comes along and proposes to do something that's been done
> in the past to little avail (cf. CLRFI) and which, in the minds of
> many Lispers, may or may not even be a worthwhile goal. The community
> largely ignores this individual and somehow this is proof that there
> is something deeply wrong with the Lisp community. Go away.
On one hand we have a community that agrees about the lack of standard
for threads, gui, sockets and whatnot...
On the other hand we have people that agree about the standard being pretty
good
as it is and frankly quite big already.
It seems obvious that a standard library is the solution that will fit
both views.
Sacha