Our system administrators announced recently that
they were going to begin withdrawing support for ibuki common
lisp (because of costs), and advocated using lucid common lisp
which they would support. This made me wonder what the relative
advantages of the different brands of common lisp available for
workstations are. What makes Ibuki preferable to Lucid, (both products),
compared to Kyoto CL, which is free?
Is it a major question of support availability? Are the main
differences in programming environment, or efficiency?
Thanks,
Castor Fu
······@embezzle.stanford.edu
p.s. I don't know anything about lisp, but figured that if I ever wanted
to, I wanted to know which systems were preferable.
In article <·············@adelbert6.Stanford.EDU>, ···@adelbert6.Stanford.EDU (castor fu) writes:
> Our system administrators announced recently that
> they were going to begin withdrawing support for ibuki common
> lisp (because of costs), and advocated using lucid common lisp
> which they would support. This made me wonder what the relative
> advantages of the different brands of common lisp available for
> workstations are. What makes Ibuki preferable to Lucid, (both products),
> compared to Kyoto CL, which is free?
>
> Is it a major question of support availability? Are the main
> differences in programming environment, or efficiency?
> Thanks,
> Castor Fu
> ······@embezzle.stanford.edu
> p.s. I don't know anything about lisp, but figured that if I ever wanted
> to, I wanted to know which systems were preferable.
>
Some of the attributes to be considered might be:
windowing support
portability
platforms available
customer support (quality/cost/methods)
method of garbage collection
interprocess communication support
debug and trace facilities
foreign function interface
advice facility
cost
image dumping/size of images
Darryn J Kozak
Cray Research Park
655F Lone Oak Drive
Eagan, MN 55121
······@cray.com
(612) 683-5244
ISS (Integrated Support System) Project