I'm looking for a Common Lisp system for MS Windows, and currently
trying to port CLISP to the Win32s platform. I've been using the
Symantec C++ compiler, but sadly it has a bug in the preprocessor
that causes the '##' to expand with a space between the two symbols,
and that makes it unable to handle the CLISP header file. It also has
trouble running the GNU C preprocessor, which I compiled with SC++.
What I'd like to know is, does GNU C support Win32s, and does the
compiler run under DOS? I can't use NT (full Win32), which is why
I'm using the subset (Win32s). I'm hoping that there's a GNU C
compiler that can produce Win32s apps. Which compiler was GNU Chess
compiled with?
My basic question is: can I use a free Common Lisp such as CLISP,
or will I have to buy a commercial Lisp, like Allegro CL/PC?
Even at $995 (I know it's on special offer ATM) CL/PC is cheap
compared to NT, VC++ for NT, and the hardware to run it on.
I currently use a 20 Mhz 386 with 8 MB of RAM...
Thanks,
Martin Rodgers
--- Cyber Surfing on CIX ---
············@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Cyber Surfer") writes:
>My basic question is: can I use a free Common Lisp such as CLISP,
>or will I have to buy a commercial Lisp, like Allegro CL/PC?
>Even at $995 (I know it's on special offer ATM) CL/PC is cheap
>compared to NT, VC++ for NT, and the hardware to run it on.
>I currently use a 20 Mhz 386 with 8 MB of RAM...
EMX, which includes GCC, is the preferable compiler to use to compile
CLISP under DOS and OS/2. Although EMX doesn't support DPMI directly,
another package called RSX allows you to use EMX-compiled (or DJGPP)
binaries under Microsoft Windows. CLISP also compiles with DJGPP,
which supports DPMI directly. Watcom is another possibility.
In article <··········@ursula.ee.pdx.edu>,
······@ee.pdx.edu (Marcus Daniels) writes:
> EMX, which includes GCC, is the preferable compiler to use to compile
> CLISP under DOS and OS/2. Although EMX doesn't support DPMI directly,
> another package called RSX allows you to use EMX-compiled (or DJGPP)
> binaries under Microsoft Windows. CLISP also compiles with DJGPP,
That doesn't help me obtain a native MS Windows versions, which
is what I'm looking for. DOS and DOSX binaries are _not_ MS Windows
binaries, and can't directly use the MS Windows IPC features.
I know that CLISP compiles with DJGPP, but does that create Win32s
binaries? That's what I'm looking for. I need a DOS/DOSX compiler
binary that creates Win32s binaries. SC++ can do this, but the bug
in the preprocessor makes it useless for compiling CLISP, and CCCP
won't work with SC++ either, apparently.
I would greatly appreciate any constructive advise on this matter.
Using NT or some other commercial compiler is not an option for me.
I have a very small budget. Also, spending more than $600 makes no
sense, as Allegro CL/PC would be cheaper (until May 31, at least).
Switching to NT & VC++ from my current hardware/software would cost
more than twice that.
ATM, CLISP for Win32s looks very remote. :-(
Martin Rodgers
--- Cyber Surfing on CIX ---
In article <··········@cix.compulink.co.uk> ············@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Cyber Surfer") writes:
>
>I know that CLISP compiles with DJGPP, but does that create Win32s
>binaries?
No.
(It's only in recent versions that the DJGPP DOS-extender was
even capable of running in a DOS shell under Windows.)
Marshall Abrams ····@midway.uchicag.edu
--
Marshall Abrams ····@midway.uchicago
In article <··········@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
>I have a very small budget. Also, spending more than $600 makes no
>sense, as Allegro CL/PC would be cheaper (until May 31, at least).
>Switching to NT & VC++ from my current hardware/software would cost
>more than twice that.
How much does Allegro CL cost for NT? Is the $600 just for the MS-
Windows version, or for NT too? Or is there any NT version at all?
When I asked about it in the past, they said it was $599 for the
MS-Windows version, but that it would go back up to $995 shortly.
That was a long time ago. Didn't it go back up? They also said
they would have a version for NT soon, so they should have it by
now. Do they?
How much better is Allegro CL than CLISP?
For compiling CLISP, one possibility would be to use the preprocessor
of another C compiler to preprocess the CLISP code before compiling
it with your Symantec compiler, to avoid the preprocessor bug you
mentioned. However, that bug sounds kind of strange. I would think
it would be considered very urgent by most Symantec customers, and
that they would fix it within a few weeks after that version was
released. So maybe you should try a different version of the same
compiler. I think there are patches available for some versions
from ftp.cica.indiana.edu, but I don't remember what directory they
are in.
In article <·············@netcom.com>,
···@netcom.com writes:
> How much does Allegro CL cost for NT? Is the $600 just for the MS-
> Windows version, or for NT too? Or is there any NT version at all?
I don't know. I can't use NT, so I'd want a Win32s version. The
Win16 version currently costs $595, which is considerably cheaper
than the hardware/software upgrade I'd need to run NT. In fact,
it would be cheaper to upgrade to _Unix_, tho I suspect that buy
Allegro CL/PC (for Win16) will still be the cheapest way to get
a Lisp system I can use. At the normal price of %995, Unix and
CLISP starts to look cheaper.
> When I asked about it in the past, they said it was $599 for the
> MS-Windows version, but that it would go back up to $995 shortly.
> That was a long time ago. Didn't it go back up? They also said
> they would have a version for NT soon, so they should have it by
> now. Do they?
May 31 is the last day for the special offer. It's too late for me
to use it, as I don't have the money yet.
> How much better is Allegro CL than CLISP?
Allegro is a native system. It compiles to 386 code, and can create
Win16 stand-alone apps. I wouldn't need to do any coding to get that
high level of support. CLISP has none of that, so I'd have to write
it all myself. A Lisp to C compiler probably wouldn't work, thanks
to segments (a x86 quirk) that is still used in Win16.
Unless GNU C for DOS can compile for Win32(s), I doubt that I can
get a CLISP binary. SC++ can't do it, coz of a bug in the '##'
preprocessor command. VC++ needs NT to compile for NT.
> For compiling CLISP, one possibility would be to use the preprocessor
> of another C compiler to preprocess the CLISP code before compiling
> it with your Symantec compiler, to avoid the preprocessor bug you
> mentioned. However, that bug sounds kind of strange. I would think
I've tried that. SC++ failed to produce a CCCP binary that could
handle the CLISP header file. The 16bit binary ran out of memory
(DOS is very limited like that), and the 32bit binary simply hung.
> it would be considered very urgent by most Symantec customers, and
> that they would fix it within a few weeks after that version was
> released. So maybe you should try a different version of the same
> compiler. I think there are patches available for some versions
> from ftp.cica.indiana.edu, but I don't remember what directory they
> are in.
Symantec assure me that the bug is still there in the latest version.
I'm not happy about that, and I doubt many other users are, either.
Perhaps most SC++ programmers don't use that feature? I dunno.
I doubt VC++ has this problem. If anyone has this compiler for NT,
could they please try compiling CLISP? Perhaps there just aren't
enough people using:
1) VC++
2) CLISP
to want to port CLISP to Win32(s). I'm stuck with SC++, as that
seems to be the _only_ C++ compiler that runs under DOS/Win16 and
also compiles for WIn32. Microsoft and Borland havn't bothered,
so I didn't buy a compiler from them. Symantec's quality control
seems to be in dire trouble, or it could just be the usual "x.0"
problem that all software is supposed to be afflicted with.
So, the only compiler I _know_ can compile CLISP is GNU C, but
that can only create binaries that're available to me already.
I'm thinking more and more seriously about switching to Unix...
Martin Rodgers
--- Cyber Surfing on CIX ---
>I doubt VC++ has this problem. If anyone has this compiler for NT,
>could they please try compiling CLISP? Perhaps there just aren't
>enough people using:
>
> 1) VC++
> 2) CLISP
>
>to want to port CLISP to Win32(s). I'm stuck with SC++, as that
>seems to be the _only_ C++ compiler that runs under DOS/Win16 and
>also compiles for WIn32. Microsoft and Borland havn't bothered,
>so I didn't buy a compiler from them. Symantec's quality control
>seems to be in dire trouble, or it could just be the usual "x.0"
>problem that all software is supposed to be afflicted with.
Borland 4.0 compiles for Win32 and Win32s, as well as Win16 and DOS
(16/32?). From the Win16 IDE you can compile to any/all of the other
platforms. I haven't tried it, but would be interested to see if it
works.
Pete Kruckenberg
········@peruvian.cs.utah.edu
In article <······················@hellgate.utah.edu>,
·····························@cs.utah.edu (Joseph Kruckenberg) writes:
> Borland 4.0 compiles for Win32 and Win32s, as well as Win16 and DOS
> (16/32?). From the Win16 IDE you can compile to any/all of the other
> platforms. I haven't tried it, but would be interested to see if it
> works.
It would be interesting. I won't be able to purchase any more
software this year, which is just one reason why I'd like to
see a GNU C for Win32s. It's also the mor ideal compiler for
the software I want to put thru it.
Thanks for your suggestion, tho.
Martin Rodgers
--- Cyber Surfing on CIX ---