Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!spool2.mu.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!parc!gregor From: gregor@parc.xerox.com (Gregor Kiczales) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Is this the end of the lisp wave? Message-ID: Date: 18 Jan 91 18:49:53 GMT References: <127724@linus.mitre.org> <5569@turquoise.UUCP> <3954@skye.ed.ac.uk> Sender: news@parc.xerox.com Organization: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Lines: 18 In-Reply-To: tim@cstr.ed.ac.uk's message of 18 Jan 91 13:01:58 GMT In article tim@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) writes: And as well as this it is relatively easy to disentangle the language at a coarser level: leave CLOS, the new loop macro and various other big chunks of CL mentioned in ClTL2 out of the core of CL. In fact I would be fairly surprised & disappointed if CL implemtations did *not* do this! Actually, I would think there were better things to leave out of the core implementation. In fact, I would think that using CLOS in the core is a good idea. Its runtime can be quite small, and using it there can provide a foundation for extensibility that many users want. What I would leave out of the kernel implementation is stuff like the hairy sequence functions, format and the like. I think of these as libraries, which can easily be separated. It would seem that, in most implementation strategies, these things would have a larger runtime and be more intertwined with one another.