Prev: porting a Forth program
Next: The correct choice for implementation
From: Teemu Likonen on 9 Mar 2010 05:57
* 2010-03-09 11:25 (+0100), Petter Gustad wrote:

> Do you have any particular reason why you want to use CLISP and not
> SBCL if you're on Linux? If not I would suggest using SBCL.

I don't know. When I started I heard nobody saying that CLISP is the
wrong choice. I think CLISP works nicely. It can run scripts that begin
with #!/usr/bin/clisp (out-of-the-box) and there is this nice readline
support automatically, even with (read-line *query-io*).

Maybe I'll switch to SBCL but I'm pretty sure that some other areas suck
in SBCL. Maybe some other libraries won't work.
From: Erik Winkels on 9 Mar 2010 07:18
On 2010-03-09, Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you readline support, chances are that you are making your life
> more difficult than it should be

Not really.


> (hint: use SLIME), but rlwrap will give it to you in SBCL.

Also: http://www.cliki.net/Linedit
From: Erik Winkels on 9 Mar 2010 09:09
On 2010-03-09, Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:18:29 +0000, Erik Winkels wrote:
>> On 2010-03-09, Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you readline support, chances are that you are making your life more
>>> difficult than it should be
>>
>> Not really.
>
> I wonder why you say that. Do you program by typing code into the
> command line? I don't really see how that would be comfortable, let
> alone productive.

I don't do that but although I generally use Emacs + SLIME developing
without them using a CL implementation with readline support is pretty
painless. Better than sending a beginner off to Emacs + SLIME if he
doesn't have experience with them, especially since he's apparently
already familiar with readline based environments.

After all redefining functions is only a :w and a history-1 away :)
From: Ron Garret on 9 Mar 2010 12:04
In article <87eijtg3t7.fsf_-_(a)mithlond.arda>,
Teemu Likonen <tlikonen(a)iki.fi> wrote:

> * 2010-03-09 11:25 (+0100), Petter Gustad wrote:
>
> > Do you have any particular reason why you want to use CLISP and not
> > SBCL if you're on Linux? If not I would suggest using SBCL.
>
> I don't know. When I started I heard nobody saying that CLISP is the
> wrong choice.

CLisp is the wrong choice*. Try Clozure Common Lisp instead.

rg

* Note: I don't actually have anything against CLisp. I think it's a
fine implementation. But AFAIK it lacks threads, which is a major
deficiency. IMHO CCL dominates CLisp in every respect.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: porting a Forth program
Next: The correct choice for implementation