On Dec 26, 2005, at 10:48 PM, Surendra Singhi wrote: > Steve Freitas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Trying to keep too many options open can prevent one from taking >> advantage of any at all. >> >> The Lisp community would benefit enormously if one implementation >> were >> the defacto open source standard, and I think we should choose one >> and >> put our efforts behind it. >> > Having choice is not something which is bad. In fact the more the > better.
Actually that's not true. C.f. _The Paradox of Choice_ by Barry Schwartz. That said, I'm not sure that the Gardeners should set out, as a matter of policy, to anoint one Lisp implementation as the "winner". I do, however, think it'd be fine if a number of gardeners decided to put their efforts into projects that only benefit a particular implementation. And if enough gardeners decide to do work that improves the same implementation, that may be enough to put the "facto" in the de facto standard. Basically, I don't want CL Gardeners to require a bunch of coordination and politicking before we can do anything. The point is to provide just a bit of structure to help folks do actual work on things they think will make the Lisp world a better place. If some folks want to work on things that only benefit a single implementation that's fine, but if other folks want to work on cross- implementation portable libraries or whatever that should also be fine. -Peter -- Peter Seibel * [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/ Practical Common Lisp * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
