Common Lisp for Mac OS X
in [Lisp]
|
From: Marc Mientki on 28 May 2010 07:34 Am 27.05.2010 15:13, schrieb Raffael Cavallaro: > On 2010-05-27 05:16:44 -0400, Marc Mientki said: > >> Which implementation of Common Lisp should I choose if I want to write >> applications for OS X? Thus created applications must have the look >> and feel of native Mac software. > > Clozure Common Lisp, totally native look and feel, cocoa bridge, free, > both 32 and 64 bit, ppc and intel: > > <http://trac.clozure.com/ccl> Thanks for this hint! It seems to be very interested and I will try it out. regards Marc
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 28 May 2010 09:42 On 2010-05-27 13:16:24 -0400, Raymond Toy said: > But clisp has its own compiler, so if the presence of a compiler > disqualifies an app, won't clisp be disqualified? Yes, clisp is disqualified for the simple reason that the current Apple developer agreement stipulates that: "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine." Pretty sure that clisp compiles code that is "originally written in" common lisp, not a C variant. Apple's agreement specifically prohibits "an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool." So the fact that clisp is compiled by gcc means nothing. The kernel of CCL is compiled by gcc too, but that doesn't make CCL apps "originally written in Objective-C, C, C++;" they're written in common lisp, just like clisp apps. Pascal said "*closer* to be acceptable by Apple." (emphasis added) In practice, this may not amount to much. However, if Apple relents and changes this particular part of the agreement, then things like ecl and gambit scheme will be usable for iPhone/iPad apps (there's actually a gambit/opengl app in the store now, but it won't be there for the new OS because of the agreement quoted above). I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for apple to change the dev agreement though. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: game_designer on 28 May 2010 11:23 On May 28, 7:42 am, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-27 13:16:24 -0400, Raymond Toy said: > > > But clisp has its own compiler, so if the presence of a compiler > > disqualifies an app, won't clisp be disqualified? > > Yes, clisp is disqualified for the simple reason that the current Apple > developer agreement stipulates that: > > "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or > JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine." > > Pretty sure that clisp compiles code that is "originally written in" > common lisp, not a C variant. Apple's agreement specifically prohibits > "an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool." So the > fact that clisp is compiled by gcc means nothing. The kernel of CCL is > compiled by gcc too, but that doesn't make CCL apps "originally written > in Objective-C, C, C++;" they're written in common lisp, just like > clisp apps. > > Pascal said "*closer* to be acceptable by Apple." (emphasis added) In > practice, this may not amount to much. However, if Apple relents and > changes this particular part of the agreement, then things like ecl and > gambit scheme will be usable for iPhone/iPad apps (there's actually a > gambit/opengl app in the store now, but it won't be there for the new > OS because of the agreement quoted above). I wouldn't hold my breath > waiting for apple to change the dev agreement though. It is really a shame that Apple has this kind of policy. I wonder how this really works.Do they have some kind of honor code certification box where developers must certify that they did write the app in Objective-C/C++/JavaSCript the same way that people declare at the airport that they have nothing to declare, or is there some technical mechanism in place that allows Apple to scan the binary for suspicious pattern. Imagine this kind of scenario. One could write an application in Xcode (Objective-C) which would be the high level app. This app would clearly be written originally in Objective-C. The app would load several libraries (e.g., CCL and some base implementation levels of your app written in Lisp). Is there a clause that forbids the loading of libraries? Furthermore, the app could load data files. XML would probably be no problem while loading, and evaling files containing s- expressions would be a bit too obvious. Would there be a legal or technical issue with that? Alex
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 28 May 2010 13:06 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > On 2010-05-27 13:16:24 -0400, Raymond Toy said: > >> But clisp has its own compiler, so if the presence of a compiler >> disqualifies an app, won't clisp be disqualified? > > Yes, clisp is disqualified for the simple reason that the current > Apple developer agreement stipulates that: > > "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or > JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine." But this doesn't mean anything! "Interpreter Pattern" "Brain Waves" !!! -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 28 May 2010 13:25
Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or > JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine." In addition to the overall meaning, I have a problem with each word of this sentence. What is an "application"? What about bits, libraries, subroutines? "must" Of course, this is the main problem in this sentence. "be" We're talking about ideas here. What kind of "be" do they mean? If that's a physical existence, "applications" don't exist, only electrons. If that's the information they mean, see "written" below. "originally" Ok, so we cannot port any old program. We must write only new "applications". No spreadsheet, no web browser, no calculator, no video player, no nothing! Only something new. "written" Also a big problem where. What do they mean "written"? Bits stored in RAM? On a magnetic hard disk file? On paper? What about the code I write in my mind before transcribing it to emacs? "in" OK, perhaps the less controversal one. "Objective-C", "C", "C++", "or", "JavaScript". Need I to comment here? Why should Apple promote such a setback? "as" I'll let you think about the fuzziness of the notion expressed by this 'as'... "executed by" Yes, these programming languages don't execute (run) applications, they do execute (kill) them. I don't want my applications be executed like that! "iPhone OS" What OS? No multi-tasking, no OS! "WebKit" No, thank you. I wanted to write an application, not a web page. "engine" Really!? Hey! It's all bits and electrons! -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ |