Dear All,
Dear All,
I need AKCL (Austin Kyoto Common Lisp) to run under Linux (PC based
unix), can anybody tell me either how to do this or where
I can get an appropriate AKCL port from. Also I'd like CLOS with
AKCL, can I just put this straight on top of AKCL or do I have to
compile a new version with CLOS ?
Any help would be most appreciated, thanks.
Cheers,
Jason
Email : ···········@prg.ox.ac.uk
I need AKCL (Austin Kyoto Common Lisp) to run under Linux (
distribution), can anybody tell me either how to do this or where
I can get an appropriate AKCL port from.
Any help would be most appreciated, thanks.
Cheers,
Jason
Email : ···········@prg.ox.ac.uk
······@comlab.ox.ac.uk (Jason Brown) writes:
>I need AKCL (Austin Kyoto Common Lisp) to run under Linux (
>distribution), can anybody tell me either how to do this or where
>I can get an appropriate AKCL port from.
Well, I once got akcl 1.615 working under Linux, back when Linux was
a 'lil tyke. So it's possible. (The port is gone - I got it working,
briefly, but it was never really "finished", so I gave it away a year
ago to somebody who had some free time to mess with it. Haven't seen
or heard about it since).
In any case, I wouldn't recommend trying. AKCL is a chaotic mess.
I've never seen so many wierd hacks in my life. Some of them are
necessary (like the code that concatenates data on to the end of
object files), but most of them are just gratuitous (like the code
that stuffs data into the fields of a struct _iob - what's a struct
_iob, you ask? It's an undocumented data structure in some people's
stdio, that's what it is.). Many of the silly tricks are unreliable
(like the script that checks PWD to figure out the proper access path
for akcl, or the trick with getrlimit that supposedly finds the bottom
of the stack). In any case, my general opinion of akcl is, don't even
try to port it, unless you like the prospect of debugging somebody
else's code for several months.
If I were you, I'd go with clisp, for now.