Falcon5757 Snoovatar
Falcon575721:02
Hi.
I'm not exactly happy to message you, but that's important.
Here's a dialog i just had, I m gonna paste it here
DovahkiinToday at 20:48
i initiated a discussion (in russian lisp chat) about what things would we want for a "new" or "next" or whatever you call it "standard"
altho maybe it better be called next CL iteration
we gonna make a huuge public doc where I and some people will try to gather sensible thoughts and arguments
and counterarguments as well ofc
and then feed it to reddit and
other places
I can give some people the opportunity to add something too
Just in case you are enthusiastic about it
ein StrauchToday at 20:52
there's a similar initiative by phoe and some others, alongside the revival of the CAR process to codify non-ansi standards like bordeaux-threads or usocket
headed by lonjil
you may wanna contact them to join efforts, rather than splitting communities n stuff
its my post + an answer, and he's at least got a certain point
flaming_bird21:29
heyyyyy
hmmmm! so there is another similar initiative
OK, I see - what's the next step? we are kinda organizing on #cl-car on Freenode
also I know ein Strauch, he's aware of what lonjil is doing wrt the CAR process
what do you suggest I should do now?
Falcon5757 Snoovatar
Falcon575721:42
Well the point was to make at least some coordination behind the scenes
I suspect our goals might differe significantly but at least the underlying motivation is similar so
Right now we have gathered some data but havent organized it in a document -- which is what i m going to do this/next week
afaic your initiative is about CAR being reborn + some hyperspec i suppose?
ours is what we are (currently) calling "standard for next common lisp iteration"
flaming_bird21:53
well
our goal is reviving CDRs
and so more like getting existing CL implementations to converge with regard to extensions to the standard
also, are you aiming for a specification, or a standard? if the latter, then which organization is going to standardize it?
do you know how you are going to implement it? like, do you want to mutate some existing Lisp implementation, or write it in Common Lisp to have it executed atop an existing ANSI CL implementation?
Falcon5757 Snoovatar
Falcon575721:57
Right, and what we discussed (so far, later the focus might shift if more people join) is "we really want a lot of things fixed that can pretty much only be fixed inside compilers guts" so think about specification for lowlevel features, on which the high level stuff can be built. Its not exactly "Sbcl reloaded" but same ballpark I suppose
flaming_bird21:57
I was thinking about fixing up CCL rather than SBCL
Falcon5757 Snoovatar
Falcon575721:58
We dont know where the money or resources may come from, which is why i also planned to post on reddit
flaming_bird21:58
mostly because CCL is much smaller codewise, and therefore easier to bend
Falcon5757 Snoovatar
Falcon575721:58
Our posts would totally clash
flaming_bird21:58
clash? what do you mean?
I don't think we are preparing any kind of reddit post at this moment
and our goals are orthogonal
Falcon5757 Snoovatar
Falcon575721:58
well you post yout thing and people start discussing it and then i post mine which is ....more controversial
flaming_bird21:58
CAR is about improving ANSI CL, your goal seems to go beyond ANSI CL
to me, they're simply different
Falcon5757 Snoovatar
Falcon575721:59
those are about improving the languages and resources are limited))
but also, like, I do generally support your initiative, but i m unsure if i can contribute to it in any meaningful way
do you support ours? Because you certainly could put your ideas about what are the fundamental things that could be added to that next iteration of CL
flaming_bird22:00
yes, I have been dreaming and thinking about the next iteration of CL for years now
but I also think it's unsustainable at the moment because we have few resources, possibly too few, and we need to get more people interested in the current ANSI CL before we find proper workforce for improving it