Where can I find CLOS? Does this come with its own lisp interpreter/compiler
or does it run on a common lisp. If its the latter, will it run with AKCL?
Thanks for any info.
Reha Elci
Email: ····@bugs.gs.com
In article <··················@bugs.local> ····@bugs.gs.com writes:
>Where can I find CLOS? Does this come with its own lisp interpreter/compiler
>or does it run on a common lisp. If its the latter, will it run with AKCL?
A portable implementation of CLOS, called PCL, is available via anonymous
FTP from parcftp.xerox.com.
PCL runs in Common Lisp, and I believe it is mostly written in portable CL.
I'm pretty sure PCL runs in AKCL.
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.
······@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
>>>>> On 20 Dec 1991 23:18:37 GMT, ······@think.com (Barry Margolin) said:
Barry> In article <··················@bugs.local> ····@bugs.gs.com writes:
>Where can I find CLOS? Does this come with its own lisp interpreter/compiler
>or does it run on a common lisp. If its the latter, will it run with AKCL?
Barry> A portable implementation of CLOS, called PCL, is available via
Barry> anonymous FTP from parcftp.xerox.com.
Barry> PCL runs in Common Lisp, and I believe it is mostly written in
Barry> portable CL. I'm pretty sure PCL runs in AKCL.
It does indeed... I compiled it yesterday as a matter of fact.
Barry> Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.
Tom
--
Thomas Emerson
________________ Student Systems Programmer - EMBA Computer Facility
/ /_) /_ /_ University of Vermont
/ / \ /__ /__ ····@uvm.edu
God made one mistake when He created man: He wrote self-modifying code...
(use-package 'std-disclaimer)
>Where can I find CLOS? Does this come with its own lisp interpreter/compiler
>or does it run on a common lisp. If its the latter, will it run with AKCL?
The intention is for CLOS to be _part of_ Common Lisp. That is,
unlike such things as CLX, CLOS isn't a program that might or might
not run in some Common Lisp. Nor is it a separate langauge, with
it's own interpreter or compiler.
On the other hand, CLOS was added to Common Lisp after the first
edition of Guy Steele's book, and some Common Lisps still don't
include CLOS. Fortunately, there is a reasonably portable
implementation of CLOS, called PCL (which, for historical reasons,
stands for Portable CommonLOOPS). PCL works in most, if not all,
of the well-known Common Lisps, including AKCL. It can be ftp'd
from (I think) parcftp.xerox.com.
Since this sort of confusuion about CLOS (that it might be a program
or a language) is so common, I think it's unfortunate that CLOS is
so often referred to as a language, rather than as part of Common Lisp.
It seems that virtually every book that discusses CLOS calls it a
language. It even happens in the best books, such as _The Art of the
Metaobject Protocol_. The name of the newsgroup comp.lang.clos
probably doesn't help either.
This sort of minor inaccuracy about the exact status of CLOS wouldn't
matter if no one was confused by it. But I suspect that when many
people first hear of CLOS they hear of it as a language; or perhaps
they are already in the grip of some misunderstanding and then a
reference to CLOS as a language fails to help them escape.
(Of course, it's possible that some people want to dissociate CLOS
from Common Lisp, because Common Lisp has a bad reputation, or something
like that, but I hope not.)
-- jeff
In article <····@skye.ed.ac.uk> ····@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
[...]
>It seems that virtually every book that discusses CLOS calls it a
>language. [...]
Not only CLOS, but there is the loop language, the format language, etc.,
each a complete Turing-equivalent language. :-)
- Marty
(setf (need-p 'disclaimer) NIL)
In article <····@skye.ed.ac.uk> ····@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
(Of course, it's possible that some people want to dissociate CLOS
from Common Lisp, because Common Lisp has a bad reputation, or something
like that, but I hope not.)
Around here we often tell outsiders we program in "CLOS" rather than
"Common Lisp." The reason has nothing to do with the real or
perceived advantages and disadvantages of various branches of the Lisp
family. Rather, the term "Lisp" itself is often inextricably
associated--in the minds of those who don't know better--with the
following:
- Artificial intelligence.
- Expert systems.
- Interpretation instead of compilation.
- Wastefulness in space and time usage.
- Old age and obsolescence.
- CAR, CDR, ATOM, EQ, LAMBDA and nothing else.
- Ubiquitous recursion.
- etc.
These (perceived) bogeymen are then irrationally projected onto our
application. Thus, to circumvent listeners' prejudices, we simply say
"CLOS" instead of "Common Lisp."
Lawrence G. Mayka
AT&T Bell Laboratories
···@iexist.att.com
Standard disclaimer.