3 ms·
Another point is that a lot of Common Lisp code seems to implicitly assume SBCL, so I don't know what, if anything, I can get through Quicklisp will run on Lisp
by msla 4y ago
Another point is that a lot of Common Lisp code seems to implicitly assume SBCL, so I don't know what, if anything, I can get through Quicklisp will run on Lispworks' little interpreter. That might not be a big problem if I were to ignore external libraries in favor of some preexisting codebase.
- mikelevins 4y agoI used Lispworks alongside SBCL and other Common Lisps for about 16 years. Once in a while I had a problem with some quicklisp library in Lispworks, but it was infrequent.
- pfdietz 4y agoIt would be interesting to find the places where Quicklisp systems depend on some quirk of SBCL that's not required by the standard. I know of one case here: one depended on string constants having element type CHARACTER, when that is not required by the standard. It's ok for an implementation to cause a string like "abc" to have element type BASE-CHAR, for example. Another example might be assuming that various standard functoins that return booleans return T for true. Almost all are not required to do that.