If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

[Juanjo]

On Jul 21, 6:57 am, Frank Buss <fb at frank-buss.de> wrote:
> Scott Burson wrote:
> > Have you looked atECL?
>
> >http://ecls.sourceforge.net/
>
> > I've used it only a little, so I can't vouch for its stability, but it
> > fits the threading and license requirements (well, some corporate
> > lawyers have trouble with the LGPL, but I think it's usable).
>
> I didn't tried it myself, but looks like it is not very stable:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/application-builder@lispniks.com/msg01069...

ECL suffers from fast development problems if this is what you mean.
People are advised to stay with certain releases and we announce when
some ports are broken due to progress along certain lines.

For instance, if I find that the generational garbage collector is
needed for Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and OS X, and it works, I do not
mind dropping temporarily the mingw port until the garbage collector
library catches up. People who wanted to stay with mingw produced a
branch (see Samium's posts) with the old garbage collector.

Now this is not so dramatic. ECL now has a release cycle of ONE MONTH.
If you find that this month's release does not work on your platform
(and this is normally explicit in the announcement), then do not
upgrade and wait one or two months until the problem is solved.

OTOH, people only seem to notice problems when their petty platform is
temporarily broken, but nobody seems to notice the overall stability
and portability of the platform. See the list http://ecls.sourceforge.net/logs.html
which will soon expand including Solaris and regular builds on Windows
using the free Microsoft compiler. And once the ARM computer I have
been gifted by a happy arrives, then Debian-ARM as well.

Juanjo