Subject: Re: setq givs a warning i SBCL, Not CLISP
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:16:48 -0500
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>
Rainer Joswig  <> wrote:
| (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
| > Since at least one fairly major (CMUCL)
| For me CMUCL looks in a bit of a decline. Replaced by SBCL?

Hardly. Don't call CMUCL dead yet. There are a number of us
who still strongly prefer it to SBCL for various reasons, e.g.,
SBCL ripped out the interpreter & the byte-code compiler, both
of which *I* use to good effect with CMUCL in certain situations.
I think it's more accurate to say that the CMUCL developer & user
community is simply "quieter" than the SBCL folks. But "quiet"
doesn't mean "dead", just "stable" [like CL itself!].


p.s. Speaking of which, though, whatever happened to that *other*
major CMUCL spinoff, Scieneer? <> and
<> seem to have been updated
recently, so I'm guessing they are still alive & kicking. They
seem to be supporting some interesting configurations at what
looks like reasonable prices: <>.

Rob Warnock			<>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607