On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Drew Crampsiedrewc@tech.coop wrote:
2009/9/1 Gustavo gugamilare@gmail.com:
Hello,
I also like to keep things simple. Here are a few suggestions, though.
In paragraph 4, you didn't mention "sockets" explicitly in the list. I don't know if that is intended to be included in "Networking", because Unix sockets are local to the computer.
To be quite honest, i don't know if CLtL3 actually needs sockets or networking. If we have FFI and extensible streams, we can build sockets and networking as library code.. right? I'm interested in hearing dissent on this one.
I've only been working with CL for 6 months so take all my opinions with that in mind.. but I think not having native sockets / networking is a big minus for a language in this day and age. To a relative beginner like me, having to use FFI (I know what this is but have never touched it myself) and extensible streams (I don't really have a concrete idea of what these entail, is it in any way similar to Java *OutputStream classes?) just to write to the network seems like quite a lot of hoops to jump through as opposed to just using some standardised functions. And I understand the situation now is that there are a plethora of networking libraries, which no doubt causes confusion when coming to the language for the first time... I think forcing implementations to include network code which you can rely on to be maintained and debugged is a big win.
Cheers,
Malcolm