[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Constant-Function, and integration-level
- To: Gail Zacharias <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Constant-Function, and integration-level
- From: Brad Miller <miller@ACORN.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 88 19:13 EDT
- Cc: common-lisp@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <8805131805.AA17354@spt.entity.com>
- Organization: University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science
- Phone: 716-275-1118
- Postal-address: 610 CS Building, Comp Sci Dept., U. Rochester, Rochester NY 14627
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: 13 May 88 18:05:52 EDT (Fri)
From: email@example.com (Gail Zacharias)
Clearly any decent development environment should not 'lock in' functions
during development. But that's not a question that a language standard
need address, it's something between you and your Lisp vendor...
Here we disagree. If any progress has been made in software engineering in
the past decade, it is probably to approach agreement that software reuse is
very important. When vendor delivers me software, I should be able to simply
and easily modify said work to my needs. I'm not going to be able to do that
if the implementation of the language defines the loaded code to be static.
Of course, by this standard, delivery of binary-only systems is useless. A
position I'm prepared to defend.
Brad Miller U. Rochester Comp Sci Dept.