Prev: ozzy loves lisp
Next: How do I test if a file stream is open?
From: Raymond Toy on 31 Jan 2010 20:41
On 1/31/10 6:54 PM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2010-01-31 18:05:05 -0500, Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski said:
>
>> Thank you for the information -- now could you mention here in the
>> newsgroup those -- a ton of -- full ANSI Common LISP implementations
>> -- or maybe better, some interesting ones among them.
>
> To a certain extent it depends on platform.
>
> Open source common lisp implementations:
> sbcl: linux, Mac OS X, *bsd <http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/>
> clozure common lisp <http://www.clozure.com/clozurecl.html>
> Mac OS X, linux, windows, GUI IDE on Mac OS X
> clisp <http://clisp.cons.org> all of the above platforms
> ecl <http://ecls.sourceforge.net/>

What about abcl, xcl, and cmucl? Are they somehow not deserving of
mention too? There's also clforjava (or something like that). I'm sure
there are others that I have forgotten.

Ray
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 31 Jan 2010 23:18
On 2010-01-31 20:41:08 -0500, Raymond Toy said:

> What about abcl, xcl, and cmucl? Are they somehow not deserving of
> mention too?

Aplogies - I only mentioned the implementations of which I have some
experience, assuming others would mention those that they are familiar
with. No offense intended.

--
Raffael Cavallaro

From: joswig on 1 Feb 2010 05:03
On 1 Feb., 02:41, Raymond Toy <toy.raym...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/10 6:54 PM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
> > On 2010-01-31 18:05:05 -0500, Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski said:
>
> >> Thank you for the information -- now could you mention here in the
> >> newsgroup those -- a ton of -- full ANSI Common LISP implementations
> >> -- or maybe better, some interesting ones among them.
>
> > To a certain extent it depends on platform.
>
> > Open source common lisp implementations:
> > sbcl: linux, Mac OS X, *bsd <http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/>
> > clozure common lisp <http://www.clozure.com/clozurecl.html>
> > Mac OS X, linux, windows, GUI IDE on Mac OS X
> > clisp <http://clisp.cons.org> all of the above platforms
> > ecl <http://ecls.sourceforge.net/>
>
> What about abcl, xcl, and cmucl?  Are they somehow not deserving of
> mention too? There's also clforjava (or something like that).  I'm sure
> there are others that I have forgotten.
>
> Ray

Dan Weinreb has a survey of Common Lisp implementations he considered
as 'maintained', 'active' or something like that.

http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html

From: David Thole on 11 Feb 2010 14:40
Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan.blazeski(a)gmail.com> writes:

> On Jan 31, 4:22 pm, "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski" <antti.yliko...(a)hut.fi>
> wrote:
>> The version of the GNU Common LISP that I'm currently using in my PC
>> does not have the Common LISP Object System.
>>
>> Does there exist a version of the GCL that contains the CLOS, or has
>> somebody written a CLOS system for the GCL?
>>
>> Antti Ylikoski
>> Helsinki Univ of Tech
>> Helsinki, Finland, the EU
> Is there any specific advantage of using an GCL while there is a ton
> of an implementations both OSS and commercial ones that implement full
> ANSI Common Lisp standard together with many other useful features?
>
> Bobi

I'm also a bit curious about this, in that, does the GCL program
generate machine code that's smaller than something equivalent in the
sb-ext:save-lisp-and-die function within sbcl? If it does, I can see
that being an advantage...quite honestly, a 45+Mb executable is a bit
painful when trying to get it to work on the TA's computer (an active
problem of mine).

I haven't used GCL though, or if it supports asdf or anything else - so
yeah...heh.

--
David
http://www.thedarktrumpet.com/
From: "Antti "Andy" Ylikoski" on 23 Feb 2010 03:45
David Thole wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan.blazeski(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Jan 31, 4:22 pm, "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski" <antti.yliko...(a)hut.fi>
>> wrote:
>>> The version of the GNU Common LISP that I'm currently using in my PC
>>> does not have the Common LISP Object System.
>>>
>>> Does there exist a version of the GCL that contains the CLOS, or has
>>> somebody written a CLOS system for the GCL?
>>>
>>> Antti Ylikoski
>>> Helsinki Univ of Tech
>>> Helsinki, Finland, the EU
>> Is there any specific advantage of using an GCL while there is a ton
>> of an implementations both OSS and commercial ones that implement full
>> ANSI Common Lisp standard together with many other useful features?
>>
>> Bobi
>
> I'm also a bit curious about this, in that, does the GCL program
> generate machine code that's smaller than something equivalent in the
> sb-ext:save-lisp-and-die function within sbcl? If it does, I can see
> that being an advantage...quite honestly, a 45+Mb executable is a bit
> painful when trying to get it to work on the TA's computer (an active
> problem of mine).
>
> I haven't used GCL though, or if it supports asdf or anything else - so
> yeah...heh.
>

The GNU Common LISP is rather old, and has severe flaws, eg. it does not
have CLOS...

I have changed to the Clozure Common LISP, which is the best freeware
Common LISP that I have come across.

I stumbled across the GCL because it was one of the first Common LISPs
that I came across. CLISP with Lispbox is quite good, but Clozure
Common LISP is much better.

Currently, I'm in the process of getting SLIME + Emacs to work in
concert with the Clozure CCL.

regards, Antti J. Ylikoski
Helsinki, Finland, the E.U.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: ozzy loves lisp
Next: How do I test if a file stream is open?