Hello folks,
Is anyone out there using GCLisp?
I've been using Macintosh Common Lisp for a year or two and got used to
reading interesting stuff about that particular implementation.
I'm now trying to port the same software to Windows and we've chosen Gold
Hill. I can see that there isn't a comp.lang.lisp.gcl, but should there be
one? Is there anyone else out there using it?
For example, how does it compare with Allegro (speed-wise and bug-wise)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Denis Howlett |Email ·····@logcam.co.uk
|
|Logica Cambridge Ltd |Tel: +44 223 66343
|
|104 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1LQ, UK |Fax: +44 223 322315
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <··················@158.234.41.230>, ·····@logcam.co.uk (Denis
Howlett) wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> Is anyone out there using GCLisp?
>
> I've been using Macintosh Common Lisp for a year or two and got used to
> reading interesting stuff about that particular implementation.
>
> I'm now trying to port the same software to Windows and we've chosen Gold
> Hill. I can see that there isn't a comp.lang.lisp.gcl, but should there be
> one? Is there anyone else out there using it?
>
> For example, how does it compare with Allegro (speed-wise and bug-wise)?
>
Hi,
I was using GCLisp for several years from the beginning of GCLisp 1.0 .
After a lot of problems with the software itself, the bug support (there
were really a lot of them) and the high prize, I was extremely happy when
Allegro PC 1.0 was available last december.
MOst of the problems with GCL (since it runs under Windows) stem from the
extremely inefficient and huge memory management and the strange and
incomplete windows graphic interface support (for example, no Windows look
and feel). Therefore, it was very difficult to implement a similar GUI we
already realised in our MCL version.
After switching to Allegro PC 1.0, within a couple of month, most of our
code could be ported from MCL to Allegro PC - including the graphic.
Additionally the neccessary memory requirement decreases and the speed
increases tremendously in contrast to GCL. Especially the compiler speed is
amazing and CLOS code seems to be even quicker than MCL CLOS code.
By the way you get the possibility to generate runtime dumps free of charge
which will cost (a lot) extra in GCL and is very uncomfortable to use.
Now what is good in GCL:
They have already a powerful DDE interface and a good GMACS editor (which
cannot be added to the runtime application).
The editor is the only negative point in Allegro - you can only edit files
under 32KB. Nevertheless, that's not really grave and I suppose that will
be fixed in the next version.
I'm not up to date with the actual prize of GCL 4.3a, but the last I know
of, is that the developer version is in the region of 5,000 - 6,000 DM
(additionally a special support packages). The runtime generator is
something about 1,500 DM.
Allegro PC 1.0 actually costs about 1,000$ (ca. 1,600 DM).
I hope that helps,
Stefan & Karsten.
_________________________________________________________________________
***** Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have! ****
_________________________________________________________________________
Stefan K. Bamberger
Lehrstuhl fuer Informatik VI
Universitaet Wuerzburg voice : ++49 931 7056114
Allesgrundweg 12 Fax : ++49 931 7056120
97218 Gerbrunn
Germany
email: ·····@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
_________________________________________________________________________