[erlisp-devel] Re: SoC status update please

[Dirk Gerrits]

Eric Lavigne wrote:
> The original reason for including CLisp was so that Windows users
> would have access to ErLisp. Allegro support solves that problem well
> enough for now.

Well the AllegroCL (and CMUCL) support at the moment is rather 
suboptimal (ie polling).  Of course using threads in the first place is 
suboptimal, but we can at least make our thread support as good as 
possible while other methods are developed. ;)

> So what next? Dirk, is ErLisp already have some sort of slot waiting
> for process-linking code? Or will we be designing something from
> scratch? 

The latter.  I was just starting to think about process linking when the 
storm of schoolwork kicked in.

> I'm thinking that my next step is to read Faré's thesis again. A
> robust distributed process management system does not sound like an
> easy task.

No, no it does not. ;)

- Dirk

P.S. it's Erlisp with a lowercase "L".  The LispNYC wiki lists "ErLisp" 
only because that's a WikiWord and "Erlisp" isn't.