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.