I can’t generally comply with this. I’ve developed a bunch of applications over the last 10-15 years for macOS. All of them practically still work with only minimal effort. If you stick to the provided APIs and frameworks it’s much less a pain. The provided native framework are excellent to work with.

C libraries and such things where CL is depending on for some libraries are of higher rate of change. That’s probably where the frustration comes from.

Right now I don’t think this will be a big thing for other crowd than the CL home automation. So for now cl-hab seems like ok for me. If it grows it will be good to rename it.

I’m a bit torn. I agree that if you have a proper project name it shouldn’t require the ‘cl-’ prefix. On the other hand, the prefix seems to be a common Common Lisp library prefix.

OK, I’ll think about it.

Not sure I want my name in there.

Stuff like this would be implemented as ‘binding’. It can probably be implemented utilizing the base-binding and just implementing push and pull, in a separate package. But eventually there should be proper generic functions protocol for bindings.