········@nemdev26 (Peter Verthez) wrote:
> This is correct: Emacs Lisp is not even a dialect of Common Lisp, which
> is the basis for the ANSI Lisp standard there is now
"ANSI Common Lisp" is standardized, "Lisp" isn't, as that term designates
a _family_ of related programming languages. In some contexts, "Lisp"
does imply "Common Lisp", but nevertheless the general term has a broader
meaning. "Scheme" is another member of that language family, standardized
by IEEE, as well as (more informally) by the Revised^4 Report on Scheme,
which is roughly a superset of IEEE Scheme, and implemented by most modern
implementations; some subtleties making it an exact superset are supposed
to be changed in the fifth revision (I don't know when that will be ready).
There are also some further Lisp dialects, which I won't mention here.
For Common Lisp on Linux, I'd say CMU CL is the way to go, unless you've
got serious problems with it (e.g. not enough bandwidth to get it, or
insufficient main memory).
> (Common Lisp is
> described in 'Common Lisp, the Language' by Guy Steele, THE reference on
> Common Lisp).
This is not true; CLtL is now outdated. THE reference is the ANSI standard
(see the references mentioned below for more information).
> AFAIK, Scheme is more like a subset of Lisp, but with the same possibilities
Standard Scheme is much smaller than Common Lisp, but it's neither a subset
nor a superset. For advice about implementations, it would be helpful to
know what you want to do with it. Tell us on comp.lang.scheme what you want
or need if you have particular wishes; there are many choices.
For references - online material and books - and general remarks on Lisp,
see another posting from me (it should arrive shortly before or after this),
"Re: Where can I find *solid* Lisp documentation, syntax or sample code?".
-- Marc Wachowitz <··@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de>
In comp.lang.lisp Marc Wachowitz <··@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de> wrote:
: For Common Lisp on Linux, I'd say CMU CL is the way to go, unless you've
: got serious problems with it (e.g. not enough bandwidth to get it, or
: insufficient main memory).
Why do you recommend this over Allegro Common Lisp?
--
-- Larry Troxler -- ··@westnet.com -- Patterson, NY USA --
Lawrence Troxler <··@westnet.com> writes:
>In comp.lang.lisp Marc Wachowitz <··@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de> wrote:
>: For Common Lisp on Linux, I'd say CMU CL is the way to go, unless you've
>: got serious problems with it (e.g. not enough bandwidth to get it, or
>: insufficient main memory).
>Why do you recommend this over Allegro Common Lisp?
As others noted, CMUCL is free in a sense that is more than "cost
nothing". You get the sources, you can learn from them, you can
improve it yourself and have a good chance your work gets integrated.
But a more important point is that the current license for the free
Linux version of ACL expires on Jan. 1, 1998. You will have to destroy
all copies on that date. While noone will notice this in your private
use, I wouldn't use the software for semi-public course. Even if Franz
doesn't sue you, you could get a lot of heat from your Univiserity's
bosses if someone points at you.
Don't understand me wrong, I highly welcome the Linux version in
general and the fact that it is free. There's probably a good chance
that Franz will offer a good solution (continued free license or cheap
Linux version), but this question came up a number of times before and
Franz didn't comment on it, although the date gets near. If you're
going to make serious use of the Linux version of ACL, you definitivly
should call or write Franz' management (these folks probably don't
read usenet). I know that some changes in management have been made
and it would be good to have a position statement.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
···············@wavehh.hanse.de http://www.cons.org/cracauer/
BSD User Group Hamburg/Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/