Subject: Re: Free vs Commercial Lisp From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 1998/12/28 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3123846379580201@naggum.no> * David Steuber <trashcan@david-steuber.com> | Your fear of upgrading to the final version also makes my point for me. this is bogus. that one comment has a lot of context that should not be assumed or ignored. for reference purposes, it goes like this: I (with a bright colleague reviewing my work) have developed a system with >99.95% uptime in a world where seconds matter and a minute of downtime equals lots of cash. that I held back on upgrading from ACL 4.3 for Linux to ACL 5.0.beta and had the software running on both versions in parallel for a month and that I did the same between ACL 5.0.beta and ACL 5.0 is not an argument against getting the beta. rather, it's evidence that you can run mission critical software on Franz Inc's notion of "beta". you might find it interesting to know that I had a SPARC nearby to isolate operating-system specific problems with Linux, too. this is stuff that just simply _cannot_ crash. | I don't expect CMUCL to be as polished as ACL. This is mainly due to | people on this news group pointing out to me how superior commercial | tools are compared to the free stuff. Well, I'm holding them to it. good! #:Erik -- det kommende IT-senteret på Fornebu mangler egentlig bare en flyplass