> I am also in favor
> of renaming SBCL-Next to something else. I know that we are using sbcl
> instead of clisp for building it, but the naming scheme seems to imply
> an SBCL library or module rather than a web browser application.

This is being discussed for stumpwm in bug #33311.  It's not that simple: the
trick is that Lisp applications are bundled with bytecode and source code (see
the "lib" output).

Indeed, Common Lisp has the nice feature to make it possible for all binaries to
be connected to a REPL (e.g. with SLIME) and to be hacked "live"!  For this to
work completely, we need to embed the source code.

Regarding the bytecode, well, it's like other languages: it's not mandatory, but
if it's not included or if you use a different Lisp compiler, the whole app and
all the dependencies will have to be rebuilt.

Currently, the lisp built-system is made in such a way that Lisp applications
always include the bytecode, which effectively bounds them to the compiler that
was used (here SBCL).

Does that make sense?

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/