From: MENEU HERNANDEZ FCO. JOSE
Subject: Common Lisp, where ?
Date:
Message-ID: <4jro45$4b9@marti.uji.es>
Hello, sorry for my medium English:
I have a question:
Sombody knows when can I get a shareware compiler or
interpreter for Common Lisp?. If it possible I would like
one easy to use (under X-Window, Windows or OS/2), but
never mind if it is under DOS or Linux.
Thanks.
Francisco.
·····@rossegat.uji.es
En articulo <··········@marti.uji.es> ·····@rossegat.uji.es
(MENEU HERNANDEZ FCO. JOSE) escribe:
>
> Hello, sorry for my medium English:
Lo siento para mi castellano :-)
> Sombody knows when can I get a shareware compiler or
> interpreter for Common Lisp?. If it possible I would like
> one easy to use (under X-Window, Windows or OS/2), but
> never mind if it is under DOS or Linux.
Por favor mire a mi pa'gina de WWW:
http://www.apl.jhu.edu/~hall/lisp.html. Esta informacion esta' alli.
Hay versiones libres para UNIX (incluyendo Linux), Windows, y DOS.
Saludos-
Marti'n
In <··········@marti.uji.es> ·····@rossegat.uji.es (MENEU HERNANDEZ
FCO. JOSE) writes:
>
>
> Hello, sorry for my medium English:
>
> I have a question:
> Sombody knows when can I get a shareware compiler or
> interpreter for Common Lisp?. If it possible I would like
> one easy to use (under X-Window, Windows or OS/2), but
> never mind if it is under DOS or Linux.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Francisco.
> ·····@rossegat.uji.es
Francisco:
There are at least two Window versions of Common Lisp.
One is Harlequins FreeLisp; the other is from Franz Lisp.
I don't have the addresses at hand, if you have diffficulty
locating either or both of them, send some e-mail and I'll
search my office.
Dave.
Dave Neubart (········@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <··········@marti.uji.es> ·····@rossegat.uji.es (MENEU HERNANDEZ
: FCO. JOSE) writes:
: >
: >
: > Hello, sorry for my medium English:
: >
: > I have a question:
: > Sombody knows when can I get a shareware compiler or
: > interpreter for Common Lisp?. If it possible I would like
: > one easy to use (under X-Window, Windows or OS/2), but
: > never mind if it is under DOS or Linux.
: >
: > Thanks.
: >
: > Francisco.
: > ·····@rossegat.uji.es
: Francisco:
: There are at least two Window versions of Common Lisp.
: One is Harlequins FreeLisp; the other is from Franz Lisp.
: I don't have the addresses at hand, if you have diffficulty
: locating either or both of them, send some e-mail and I'll
: search my office.
: Dave.
There are two free lisp versions for FreeBSD/Linux and commercial
Unix. One is GNU CL, prep.ai.mit.edu, the other is CMU CL (for
FreeBSD), http://www.mv.com/users/pw/lisp/. Both are good full
implementation packages. GNU CL is supported on more systems
right now though so I would start with that. Both packages use
X-Windows if available by using the Tk/Tcl packages out there, so
those must be compiled and installed first to build these with
X-Window support. Personnally I use emacs and text mode, because
it works for me.
Cheers,
Ross Walker
····@quanta.com (Ross S. W. Walker) writes:
>Dave Neubart (········@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <··········@marti.uji.es> ·····@rossegat.uji.es (MENEU HERNANDEZ
>: FCO. JOSE) writes:
>: >
>: >
>: > Hello, sorry for my medium English:
>: >
>: > I have a question:
>: > Sombody knows when can I get a shareware compiler or
>: > interpreter for Common Lisp?. If it possible I would like
>: > one easy to use (under X-Window, Windows or OS/2), but
>: > never mind if it is under DOS or Linux.
>: >
>: > Thanks.
>: >
>: > Francisco.
>: > ·····@rossegat.uji.es
>: Francisco:
>: There are at least two Window versions of Common Lisp.
>: One is Harlequins FreeLisp; the other is from Franz Lisp.
>: I don't have the addresses at hand, if you have diffficulty
>: locating either or both of them, send some e-mail and I'll
>: search my office.
>: Dave.
>There are two free lisp versions for FreeBSD/Linux and commercial
>Unix. One is GNU CL, prep.ai.mit.edu, the other is CMU CL (for
>FreeBSD), http://www.mv.com/users/pw/lisp/. Both are good full
>implementation packages. GNU CL is supported on more systems
Clisp is another often used CL implementation, and has a lot of
preconfigured packages and other new-user goddies like
commandline-editing. In other areas it is worse than the other
packages.
>right now though so I would start with that. Both packages use
>X-Windows if available by using the Tk/Tcl packages out there, so
CMUCL has no Tk binding. You can use CLX, CLUE, Garnet and CLM with
CMUCL.
>those must be compiled and installed first to build these with
>X-Window support.
Which is easy to do with Clisp and CMUCL (at least on workstations),
while the gcl CLX needs to be compiled by the user.
>Personnally I use emacs and text mode, because it works for me.
Neither of these has some integrated GUI-based development
environment.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <········@wavehh.hanse.de> - BSD User Group Hamburg
BSD, Lisp and other programming info http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer
In <··········@reader2.ix.netcom.com> ········@ix.netcom.com(Dave
Neubart) writes:
>
>In <··········@marti.uji.es> ·····@rossegat.uji.es (MENEU HERNANDEZ
>FCO. JOSE) writes:
>>
>>
>> Hello, sorry for my medium English:
>>
>> I have a question:
>> Sombody knows when can I get a shareware compiler or
>> interpreter for Common Lisp?. If it possible I would like
>> one easy to use (under X-Window, Windows or OS/2), but
>> never mind if it is under DOS or Linux.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Francisco.
>> ·····@rossegat.uji.es
>
> Francisco:
>
> There are at least two Window versions of Common Lisp.
>
> One is Harlequins FreeLisp; the other is from Franz Lisp.
> I don't have the addresses at hand, if you have diffficulty
> locating either or both of them, send some e-mail and I'll
> search my office.
>
> Dave.
For all who wanted to know:
The free Common LISPs from Harlequin and Franz can be found,
respectively at:
a) http://www.harlequin.com
b) http://www.franz.com
Dave.
In article <··········@quasar.quanta.com> ····@quanta.com (Ross S. W. Walker) writes:
From: ····@quanta.com (Ross S. W. Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Date: 10 Apr 1996 16:16:22 GMT
Organization: Quanta Communications, Inc.
Path: agate!news.ossi.com!netserv.com!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!quanta.com!rsww
Lines: 44
Distribution: inet
References: <··········@marti.uji.es> <··········@reader2.ix.netcom.com>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
...
There are two free lisp versions for FreeBSD/Linux and commercial
Unix. One is GNU CL, prep.ai.mit.edu, the other is CMU CL (for
FreeBSD), http://www.mv.com/users/pw/lisp/. Both are good full
implementation packages. GNU CL is supported on more systems
right now though so I would start with that. Both packages use
X-Windows if available by using the Tk/Tcl packages out there, so
those must be compiled and installed first to build these with
X-Window support. Personnally I use emacs and text mode, because
it works for me.
Is it true that CMUCL uses Tcl/Tk under Windows?
It'd be a rather good thing.
Marco
--
Marco Antoniotti - Resistente Umano
===============================================================================
VOTA E FAI VOTARE: http://www.citinv.it/iniziative/sociale/VotaIlGoverno.html
===============================================================================
International Computer Science Institute | ·······@icsi.berkeley.edu
1947 Center STR, Suite 600 | tel. +1 (510) 643 9153
Berkeley, CA, 94704-1198, USA | +1 (510) 642 4274 x149
===============================================================================
...it is simplicity that is difficult to make.
...e` la semplicita` che e` difficile a farsi.
Bertholdt Brecht
In article <···············@lox.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
·······@lox.icsi.berkeley.edu "Marco Antoniotti" writes:
> Is it true that CMUCL uses Tcl/Tk under Windows?
>
> It'd be a rather good thing.
Yes, it would, but it would be even better if there was native Windows
support. You could, for example use Tcl/Tk on an NT machine, while
running CMUCL on a Unix machine. I don't know if CMUCL is available
for NT itself, but Tcl/Tk certain is - you can get it on the InfoMagic
Tcl/Tk CD-ROM.
If a Win32 binary CMUCL is available that will run under Windows NT,
please let me know, so I can use it. As far as I'm aware, it only runs
under Unix. Still, if NT can run a Unix binary, that would do nearly
as well - it would be missing all the Win32 features that I'm looking
for, but it should still run some code that ACL for Windows can't.
--
<URL:http://www.enrapture.com/cybes/> "You can never browse enough."
Cyber Surfer <············@wildcard.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <···············@lox.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
> ·······@lox.icsi.berkeley.edu "Marco Antoniotti" writes:
>> Is it true that CMUCL uses Tcl/Tk under Windows?
>>
>> It'd be a rather good thing.
>Yes, it would, but it would be even better if there was native Windows
>support. You could, for example use Tcl/Tk on an NT machine, while
>running CMUCL on a Unix machine. I don't know if CMUCL is available
>for NT itself, but Tcl/Tk certain is - you can get it on the InfoMagic
>Tcl/Tk CD-ROM.
As far as I know, the MS-Windows and X11 Tcl/Tk versions are quite
similar on the surface, that means, the Tcl interface is. The binding
interface to use Tk from other languages is more different.
Anyway, X11 Servers (and X11 libs) are quite common on Windows already
and it is only a question of time until a free implementation is
availiable, so you might have a MS-Windows binary with Unix-Tk built in.
>If a Win32 binary CMUCL is available that will run under Windows NT,
>please let me know, so I can use it. As far as I'm aware, it only runs
>under Unix. Still, if NT can run a Unix binary, that would do nearly
CMUCL on Windows. Hm.
First of all, a port would probably not use the Posix interface. The
quality of NT's posix interface seems not to be sufficient and using
the Posix interface means that you can't use any Win32 functions
anymore.
So a port would probably a Win32 port and that would run on Windows 95
as well as on Windows NT ("well" = as well as Windows may run programs
well :-)
>as well - it would be missing all the Win32 features that I'm looking
>for, but it should still run some code that ACL for Windows can't.
A port using the posix interface would prevent you from using Win32
functions. However, I think it would be a Win32 port anyway and from
that point on using Win32 function would mean nothing more than to
write an alien function interface.
To avoid misunderstandings: *I* will not even try to. I have enough
way to go to understand CMUCL well enough to do any (Unix) port at
all and Windows is not exactly what I want to tangle with (Solaris x86
maybe).
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <········@wavehh.hanse.de> - BSD User Group Hamburg
BSD, Lisp and other programming info http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer
In article <······················@wavehh.hanse.de>
········@wavehh.hanse.de "Martin Cracauer" writes:
> >Yes, it would, but it would be even better if there was native Windows
> >support. You could, for example use Tcl/Tk on an NT machine, while
> >running CMUCL on a Unix machine. I don't know if CMUCL is available
> >for NT itself, but Tcl/Tk certain is - you can get it on the InfoMagic
> >Tcl/Tk CD-ROM.
>
> As far as I know, the MS-Windows and X11 Tcl/Tk versions are quite
> similar on the surface, that means, the Tcl interface is. The binding
> interface to use Tk from other languages is more different.
I can't comment on the Unix version of Tk, but the behaviour of the
Windows version uses windows that react to a mouse moving over them
just like the X-Windows version. That would confuse a lot of Windows
users, but it might not be a big problem. The lack of support for
native Windows features might be more serious, but that's a different
issue. Both of these are serious problems if your intention is to
write Windows apps in CMUCL, rather than CMUCL apps for Windows.
> Anyway, X11 Servers (and X11 libs) are quite common on Windows already
> and it is only a question of time until a free implementation is
> availiable, so you might have a MS-Windows binary with Unix-Tk built in.
I hope so. Meanwhile, I'll look elsewhere for a development system.
> First of all, a port would probably not use the Posix interface. The
> quality of NT's posix interface seems not to be sufficient and using
> the Posix interface means that you can't use any Win32 functions
> anymore.
I can't comment on that, since I've not even read the docs for POSIX.
If the choice is between using POSIX or Win32, then I'd choose Win32
everytime, mainly coz that's what I have to use anyway, but also coz
I have doubts about whether it'll be able to do the same things. As I
said, I can't comment on POSIX, only Win32.
> So a port would probably a Win32 port and that would run on Windows 95
> as well as on Windows NT ("well" = as well as Windows may run programs
> well :-)
A Win32 port would be far more useful to me that any other kind of
port. I run NT every day, and it's a hell of a lot more stable than
Win95. Perhaps you a low opinion of Windows? Well, my opinion of Unix
might improve if I were paid to use it, but I'm not, so I try to keep
an open mind, which is hard to do when I can't use it on my machine.
In other words, all my info about Unix is 2nd hand, and as you may
know, not all of what you can hear about Unix is positive. :-(
> To avoid misunderstandings: *I* will not even try to. I have enough
> way to go to understand CMUCL well enough to do any (Unix) port at
> all and Windows is not exactly what I want to tangle with (Solaris x86
> maybe).
I feel the same way, but from a Win32 perspective. I don't expect to
be using CMUCL ever, probably coz something else better suited to my
needs will come my way long before I get hold of a Win32 port of CMUCL.
My hope is that Gwydion will be one of the alternatives, but that'll
depend on whether CMU want to support Win32.
Thanks.
Cyber Surfer wrote:
>
> Yes, it would, but it would be even better if there was native Windows
> support. [etc]
ACL 3.0 for Windows has almost the entire Win32 API in the WIN package.
In article <·················@math.utexas.edu>
·······@math.utexas.edu "Benjamin Shults" writes:
> > Yes, it would, but it would be even better if there was native Windows
> > support. [etc]
>
> ACL 3.0 for Windows has almost the entire Win32 API in the WIN package.
Yes, and it costs $2500. That's about $1500+ more expensive than I
can afford. I'm using the web version right now, but as I'd prefer
a more complete system, I'm considering purchasing a commercial
Prolog system, such as PDC's Visual Prolog or LPA's WIN-PROLOG.
There are many other advantages, besides the price.
Eventually, there may also be a Dylan system (or perhaps two), but
that'll also depend on the price(s). Meanwhile, when I want full
Win32 support (including OCX, OLE, ODBC etc), then I have to struggle
with C++ - which doesn't cost me anything, as I'm paid to use it.
ACL/Win just can't do the stuff I'm doing in C++, tho this is not
necessarily the fault of the implementors. Part of the problem is
the fact that Common Lisp is such a big language, and it's almost
all in there at runtime, thanks to what is effectively statically
linked runtime code. I hope that DylanWorks will be able to use
dynamic linking and avoid this problem.
I don't know how to wait for Dylan, esp since I've no idea how much
DylanWorks will cost. Meanwhile, there's a couple of alternatives,
in the form of the two Prolog systems I mentioned above. I know what
they cost, and a far more definate idea of what they offer me as a
developer. The cost is small enough for me to gamble some of my own
money, which is the only way I'm going to find myself using such a
system, whether it'll be CL, Prolog, or Dylan.
If I could use such a system to do the same things as I'm already
doing in C++, with equally small code sizes, then who knows? I might
get lucky, and find myself being paid to code in something more
civilised than C++.
--
<URL:http://www.enrapture.com/cybes/> "You can never browse enough."
From: Donald H. Mitchell
Subject: Re: Common Lisp, where ?
Date:
Message-ID: <317592BE.599B@pgh.net>
Cyber Surfer wrote:
> > ACL 3.0 for Windows has almost the entire Win32 API in the WIN package.
>
> Yes, and it costs $2500. ...
Are you sure? Last time I bought licenses they were $500 each.
You'll definitely need the WinEmacs and the code for connecting
it with Lisp, but that's only another $100-$200.
--
Donald H. Mitchell ···@pgh.net
Proactive Solutions, Inc. 412.835.2410
5858 Horseshoe Dr. 412.835.2411 (fax)
Bethel Park, PA 15102
In message <·············@pgh.net> "Donald H. Mitchell" writes:
> Cyber Surfer wrote:
> > > ACL 3.0 for Windows has almost the entire Win32 API in the WIN package.
> >
> > Yes, and it costs $2500. ...
>
> Are you sure? Last time I bought licenses they were $500 each.
> You'll definitely need the WinEmacs and the code for connecting
> it with Lisp, but that's only another $100-$200.
I last checked the price of the Professional version last year,
and it was $2500. You're thinking of the cut down version, when
it was discounted ($150 less than the usual price). WinEmaces is
included with the Pro version, plus some other essential goodies.
--
<URL:http://www.enrapture.com/cybes/> "You can never browse enough."
·······@lox.icsi.berkeley.edu (Marco Antoniotti) writes:
>Is it true that CMUCL uses Tcl/Tk under Windows?
For X Windows, as far as I know, this has not been done. Given CMUCL's
rather elegant FFI to C strings, it might be quite easy.
For MS-Windows...
>It'd be a rather good thing.
You have time to hack? :-)
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <········@wavehh.hanse.de> - BSD User Group Hamburg
BSD, Lisp and other programming info http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer
I am looking for information on how to contact the author of the book "On LISP"
The jacket cover says he was at Harvard, but I could not find him there.
Any information you can give would be appreciated. Please Email me at
·······@soleil.acomp.usf.edu
Thank you
M. Moore
In article <··········@mother.usf.edu>, ·······@soleil.acomp.usf.edu� says...
>
>I am looking for information on how to contact Paul Graham, the author of the
book "On LISP"
>
>The jacket cover says he was at Harvard, but I could not find him there.
>
>Any information you can give would be appreciated. Please Email me at
>·······@soleil.acomp.usf.edu
>
>Thank you
>
>M. Moore
>