4 ms·
Also internationally, since CL was a most US effort and Europe/Japan were trying to have independent or international implementations/standards of Lisp.
by lispm 7y ago
Also internationally, since CL was a most US effort and Europe/Japan were trying to have independent or international implementations/standards of Lisp.
- pfdietz 7y agoI wonder what they thought the point of that was.
- lispm 7y agoWhat the point of international standards with international cooperation is? Is that the question?
- pfdietz 7y agoNo, the point of having their own Lisp, not using the US standard. Was it a hedge against Lisp becoming hugely successful and helping their computer industries?
- lispm 7y ago> No, the point of having their own Lisp, not using the US standard Why not develop according to US standards? > Was it a hedge against Lisp becoming hugely successful and helping their computer industries? That was the plan? What went wrong?
- recoil 7y agoPitman covers this in his article: communication back then between Europe and the US was much more difficult. Sending UUCP emails meant at least a 48hr round trip and so the US committee basically couldn't be bothered cooperating with their European counterparts. The Europeans - at least as Pitman imagines it - got upset and did their own thing
- andyjpb 7y agoIn the document he mentions that the eMail latency between EU/Japan and US was 2-3 days because of the number of uucp hops that the mail needed to make. He cites this as a reason why it was impractical to collaborate. Perhaps those issues persisted and once they were gone the culture was embedded?