Re: Lisp as a procedural language?

"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb(at)cesmail(dot)net> writes:
> GCL (and Clisp) are both reasonable implementations of Common Lisp.
> However, they are both GPL, which I think is an issue for PostgreSQL
> community members.

Well, it would be an issue if we wanted to distribute PL/Lisp as part of
the core; but I kinda doubt that there would be enough demand to justify
that. As long as it's a separate project I don't see much wrong with
depending on a GPL Lisp implementation, if you find that that's the best
choice technically.

> CMUCL development more or less stalled out, and many
> of the heavyweights moved to Steel Bank Common Lisp (SBCL). It's kind of
> a joke -- Carnegie => Steel, Mellon => Bank, so Carnegie Mellon
> (University) Common Lisp => Steel Bank Common Lisp. :)

Not that I've got anything against CMU software ;-)

regards, tom lane