Lisp on Mac OS X
in [Lisp]
|
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 12 Feb 2010 15:02 On 2010-02-11 23:16:29 -0500, Duke Normandin said: > @Raffael > Sure OS X is GUI intensive, but I do _a lot_ of work from the terminal. My > newsreader is `slrn' ;) Thanks for the input! You miss the point here: If you choose a common lisp that can't access Cocoa, you and any Mac OS X users of common lisp programs you write are stuck without a Mac OS X GUI. The reverse is *not* the case; if you choose a Cocoa capable common lisp, you are *not* stuck in the GUI. You are still free to use CCL or LispWorks from a terminal, via slime, as a web server, remotely, etc. All of us, as programmers, "do _a lot_ of work from the terminal." The point is, you don't want your users or yourself to be stuck there. If you really live in a terminal 24/7/365, go back to linux where you belong (ha ha, only serious). If you're a fan of open source but understand the uses and advantages of a Cocoa GUI, use CCL. If you're wise enough, or experienced enough to have learned that you rarely get what you don't pay for, use LispWorks for Macintosh. -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Tim Bradshaw on 12 Feb 2010 15:06 On 2010-02-12 04:16:29 +0000, Duke Normandin said: > Is there any reason why I cannot / should not have more than one CL > implementation installed? Say something like SBCL and CCL. Any potential > conflicts? No, and I think it's generally a good idea to do so: it helps a lot finding compatibility issues and so on. (I only currently have CCL but I'm not doing any serious development in Lisp)
From: joswig on 12 Feb 2010 16:05 On 12 Feb., 20:17, t...(a)sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote: > Duke Normandin <dukeofp...(a)nospam.net> writes: > > Is there any reason why I cannot / should not have more than one CL > > implementation installed? Say something like SBCL and CCL. Any potential > > conflicts? > > No particular reason. > > I actually have a bunch installed: CCL, LW-Personal, SBCL, CMUCL, > CLISP, ABCL. > > Normally I use sbcl or ccl for most operations. The others are for > compatibility testing of our software. > > But they don't interfere with each other, so you can have as many as you > like. Although for someone just starting out, I would pick one and > stick with that for a while so that you can concentrate on learning lisp > and not spend time figuring out all the different interactions. > > As long as you stay in standard common lisp, whatever you write will be > easily portable. The reason we have to do compatibility testing is for > cases around the edges where there is implementation-specific behavior > (for example, the exact details of logical pathname translation > definitions) > > -- > Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute One just has to make sure that the Lisp doesn't try load the fasl file written by another compiler. When using multiple Lisp compilers, it may help to write the fasls into different directories and to make sure that they all use different fasl extensions for saving and loading compiled Lisp code.
From: Duke Normandin on 12 Feb 2010 17:06 On 2010-02-12, Raymond Toy <toy.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/11/10 11:16 PM, Duke Normandin wrote: >> >> Is there any reason why I cannot / should not have more than one CL >> implementation installed? Say something like SBCL and CCL. Any potential >> conflicts? > > I have CCL, ecl, clisp, and CMUCL installed. (I mostly use CMUCL, but > the other three get used once in a while with maxima.) They all work > just fine. (I used to have Lispworks and Allegro too.) Cool! Just what I needed to know. Thanks... -- Duke *** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] ***
From: Duke Normandin on 12 Feb 2010 17:40
On 2010-02-12, Aleksandr Vinokurov <aleksandr.vin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 10:52�pm, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...(a)nospam.net> wrote: >> I have some newLISP experience, but new to LISP. >> >> From the OS X ports collection, I have the choice of installing: >> >> openmcl, sbcl, gcl (GNU), ecl, clisp, abcl (java), and ccl (clozure) >> >> I'm reading and learning from, "Practical Common Lisp", by Peter Seibel, >> wherein he recomends "Lisp in a Box". �Unfortunately, I don't see such a >> bundle for OS X. > > http://www.gigamonkeys.com/lispbox/ -- Allegro CL & CCL are in bundles > for OS X. I wish that I had known about that site before I started digging around.. ;) > I'm on reading this book too, and I've choosen Allegro CL. As I > understand Peter > Siebel uses standard CL language and does not digg in differencies of > implementations... So we will not find any GUI quirks in his book :) For no particular reason - other than I was visiting their site - I decided to install Allegro-CL. I see that it comes with both a GUI (allegro-express) and a terminal app (alisp). I'm a heavy emacs user, so it was on board already. I installed `slime', so now I have all the bits-n-pieces to hack some Lisp. ;) I'm sure that I'll be test-driving other implementations eventually, but for the time being, I'll be heeding the wisdom expressed in this ng and stick with Allegro, unless I get to hate it big-time. I was leaning toward sbcl, but I think that it's a VM-based implementation - everything in an image! I like file-based... Thanks for the input! -- Duke *** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** |