* Taylor Campbell [2005-09-17 05:03+0200] writes:
Because he wrote his own server (swank) not only the implementation specific part (swank-backend). His server also uses a rather different approach to threading than we do.
Can you explain why you think it will be an impediment to maintenance that I wrote an entire Swank server versus just a Common Lisp Swank back end? I think it might actually be easier to maintain this, because there is a single approach to everything in SLIME48, whereas the Common Lisp implementation of Swank has to deal with four different communication styles, threads versus non-threads, and compatibility in swank.lisp with all of the N different CL back ends. But I'd like to hear why you think this is not the case.
It's clearly more work to maintain a Scheme Swank server than not to. With the Scheme server, if we change the protocol, we have to change it in two servers. There is also quite a bit of code for completion, apropos, the REPL, etc. which can be written reasonably well in ANSI CL without implementation specific hooks. For Scheme it has to be maintained a second time.