From: Martin Mallinson
Subject: It's been some years... please update me..
Date: 
Message-ID: <30DB9A0B.1846@awinc.com>
Can any of you take a little time out to bring me up to speed? I worked on Symbolics 
machines some years ago but since 1992 my company has been developing C tools on the PC. 
Lisp didnt quite meet our needs (at least on the PC at that time). Now at the end of '95 we 
have a little time to look again at a LISP based product. 

We make IC test machines. All controlled by PC over SCSI bus, all currently done by Borland 
C++ environment. Most of our users will stick with this and we will continue to develop 
this C interface. There are two reasons why I am looking at LISP again:

1) I need to get off the aging Symbolics machine (yes it is still running 3 years later .. 
no problems). We need to re-implement Schemtic entry system, simulator and prototype test 
software on LISP on PC. CLIM2 looks like it might do it if it really works. All our designs 
begin on the Symbolics as LISP prototypes: LISP machine has all schematic data bases, FPGA 
files, PAL files, documentation and PC drawings. I dont know where we would be if it 
crashed. (backup 3620 is still running...)

2) Advanced (adventurous) uses will use interpreted LISP to speed up critical complex IC 
debugging work. So we want a deliverable product as well. (And we will use this to 
prototype new features and functions).

So please, anyone out there who remembers the SMBX, what can I look at today as a possible 
substitute ON THE PC? I am guessing you will direct me to Allegro (I browsed their web 
page) and I am looking for some users who can share experiences on this and other 
implementations. [Particulaly anyone in the Electronics design business]

				Thanks, martin mallinson.

From: Daniel Finster
Subject: Re: It's been some years... please update me..
Date: 
Message-ID: <DK1MvD.n34@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG>
    From: Martin Mallinson  <········@awinc.com>

    ... since 1992 my company has been developing C tools on the PC.

I'm sorry to hear that.

    1) I need to get off the aging Symbolics machine (yes it is still
    running 3 years later ..  no problems). We need to re-implement
    Schemtic entry system, simulator and prototype test software on
    LISP on PC.

Is getting a newer LispM out of the question?  You can pick up a
MacIvory 3 or an XL400 quite reasonably.  What equipment are you
running now, besides the 3620 you mention?
    
    So please, anyone out there who remembers the SMBX, what can I
    look at today as a possible substitute ON THE PC?

If you absolutely must downgrade to primitive technology, I hear
Symbolics CLOE (Common Lisp Operating Environment) is very good, and
it runs under Microsloth Windows even.  Call David Schmidt (a friendly
SMBX salesman) at 703-455-0430 for pricing and availablity
information.  *Note: SMBX is closed for the holidays.  They re-open
January 2nd.

The only other decent Lisp environment (that I know of anyways) for
toy computers is MCL for the Macintosh (and MAc would be less
stressful to use anyways (especially if you put a MacIvory in it =)).

    you will direct me to Allegro (I browsed their web page) and I am

I've heard good things and bad things about Palegro.  But I'm also
predjudiced because Franz Lisp used to be one of the slowest compilers
available (I don't know if they've changed), has only recently gone to
Common Lisp (they had their own warped dialect, sortof like MACLISP
without balls), and are rooted in BSD Eunuchs technology.  Yuck.
From: Jeff Dalton
Subject: Re: It's been some years... please update me..
Date: 
Message-ID: <DKo9AL.M4o.0.macbeth@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
In article <··········@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> ··@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG (Daniel Finster) writes:
>
>The only other decent Lisp environment (that I know of anyways) for
>toy computers is MCL for the Macintosh (and MAc would be less
>stressful to use anyways (especially if you put a MacIvory in it =)).
>
>    you will direct me to Allegro (I browsed their web page) and I am
>
>I've heard good things and bad things about Palegro.  But I'm also
>predjudiced because Franz Lisp used to be one of the slowest compilers
>available (I don't know if they've changed), has only recently gone to
>Common Lisp (they had their own warped dialect, sortof like MACLISP
>without balls), and are rooted in BSD Eunuchs technology.  Yuck.

Much of what you say there is wrong, though there are grains of
truth.

Franz Inc has had a Common Lisp for many years now.  They have
*not* "only recently" gone to Common Lisp.  So far as I know,
their CL compiler is not especially slow.

It's true that Franz Lisp was sortof like MacLisp (not just
sortof: it even had hunks).  It's also true that it had a
connection to BSD.  Indeed, Franz Lisp was distributed as
part of 4.1 and 4.2 BSD.  The Franz Lisp compiler was not
especially slow.

Initially, Franz Inc supplied a commercial, extended version of
Franz Lisp.  A Common Lisp (a separate implementation, not a
modified Franz) was not long behind, and the Franz Lisp side
gradually diminished.  (I don't know whether they still supply
it or not.)

-- jd