Re: member returns list

[Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se>]

"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com>
writes:

> Because each implementation worked on a different
> machine with a different OS (if an OS was available
> at all).

Yeah, but there were many machines at the time of the
"crazy language" C as well, still, there aren't
a plethora of C dialects. (If you don't count all the
epigone languages that borrowed heavily the syntax
of C.)

But C is famous for its portability (which also
proliferated Unix) - perhaps the exception that
confirms the rule, that Lisp is cooler than C?

> But basically, he started GNU emacs and designing
> emacs lisp slightly beforem the CL standardization
> process started, and it was far from obviouos that
> it would succeed (it took ten years!).

OK, but when it did "succeed", why not then?

And, cannot CL be used from Elisp, with explicit
notation (actually naming), but nonetheless?

I can't say I have a problem with this. As for me,
I wouldn't mind one big Lisp which included everything
from all sound Lisp dialects. In time, people would
still use virtually the same stuff. It would be a
de facto standardization. And whenever it wouldn't
happen, oh my, people just had to learn more.

But one Lisp, one Unix, one Linux distro, etc., It
sure has its appeal. In practice I think the
diversity/divergence is a strength. Only personally
I would never do a new language, a new media player,
or a new <something that already exists>. It is just
the way of the street. Different people are different,
in different ways.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573