My Artificial Intelligence class is going to get into a little bit of
Lisp this semester, and since I've been looking for an excuse to learn
Lisp ... I have a few questions.
I'm running Red Hat Linux 4.2 (2.0.30 kernel) on my system, and it comes
with GNU EMACS, which, as I understand it, has a built-in Lisp
interpreter. I've never used it, since all my programming has, until now,
been done in C/C++ and Java. I've been given to understand that it's not
a standard issue Lisp interpreter, either.
The Red Hat distribution comes with a Scheme interpreter, however. I have
been informed that Scheme is a superset of Lisp, much as C++ is to C. Is
this correct, partially correct, or merely a nasty rumor?
Finally, I have easy access to GNU's common lisp interpreter, gcl. Is
there a better alternative that I could afford (i.e. that doesn't cost
any money)?
Thank you for your time.
RichD
--
········@wasatch.com finger for PGP public key
http://www.wasatch.com/~rdemanow/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"First things first, but not necessarily in that order." -- /The Doctor/
········@wasatch.com (Richard Demanowski) writes:
: I'm running Red Hat Linux 4.2 (2.0.30 kernel) on my system, and it comes
: with GNU EMACS, which, as I understand it, has a built-in Lisp
: interpreter. I've never used it, since all my programming has, until now,
: been done in C/C++ and Java. I've been given to understand that it's not
: a standard issue Lisp interpreter, either.
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 (Common Lisp is
described in 'Common Lisp, the Language' by Guy Steele, THE reference on
Common Lisp).
: The Red Hat distribution comes with a Scheme interpreter, however. I have
: been informed that Scheme is a superset of Lisp, much as C++ is to C. Is
: this correct, partially correct, or merely a nasty rumor?
AFAIK, Scheme is more like a subset of Lisp, but with the same possibilities
(I think it is comparable to the difference C++ / Java in which Lisp
would correspond to C++ and Scheme to Java).
: Finally, I have easy access to GNU's common lisp interpreter, gcl. Is
: there a better alternative that I could afford (i.e. that doesn't cost
: any money)?
gcl implements Common Lisp, so that should be ok. Other possibilities are
clisp and most important: CMU Lisp. That last one is commonly regarded
to be the best Lisp environment on Unix that doesn't cost any money.
Beware though: CMU Lisp is quite big, but the latest Infomagic CD set
(August 97) has the entire distribution on one of the CDs.
Have fun,
Peter.
--
Peter Verthez Software Engineer
Email: at work ········@access.bel.alcatel.be
at home ····@innet.be
WWW: http://www.club.innet.be/~pub01180
This post is personal and not related to any company whatsoever.
--
In mathematics you don't understand things, you just get used to
them. - John Von Neumann
In article <··········@btmpjg.god.bel.alcatel.be>,
········@access.bel.alcatel.be wrote:
> gcl implements Common Lisp, so that should be ok. Other possibilities are
> clisp and most important: CMU Lisp. That last one is commonly regarded
> to be the best Lisp environment on Unix that doesn't cost any money.
>
> Beware though: CMU Lisp is quite big, but the latest Infomagic CD set
> (August 97) has the entire distribution on one of the CDs.
Don't forget, Allegro Common Lisp is freely available for
non commercial use for Linux. See http://www.franz.com .
It is a commercial quality Common Lisp implementation
(there *is* a difference, trust me). It has threads,
TCP/IP, runs CL-HTTP, ...
Greetings,
Rainer Joswig
--
http://www.lavielle.com/~joswig/
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Verthez <········@nemdev26> writes:
>>>>>> "RD" == Richard Demanowski <········@wasatch.com> writes:
RD> I'm running Red Hat Linux 4.2 (2.0.30 kernel) on my system, and it
RD> comes with GNU EMACS, which, as I understand it, has a built-in
RD> Lisp interpreter. I've never used it, since all my programming
RD> has, until now, been done in C/C++ and Java. I've been given to
RD> understand that it's not a standard issue Lisp interpreter,
RD> either.
Peter> This is correct: Emacs Lisp is not even a dialect of Common
Peter> Lisp, which is the basis for the ANSI Lisp standard there is
Peter> now (Common Lisp is described in 'Common Lisp, the Language' by
Peter> Guy Steele, THE reference on Common Lisp).
Imprecise language can lead to misunderstanding. Emacs Lisp *is*
`standard issue' in that it comes with Emacs. You can't get Emacs
without Emacs Lisp (at least no Emacs worthy of the name). Emacs Lisp
is *not* ANSI Common Lisp, i.e., not `standard' Common Lisp. Common
Lisp is merely one dialect of Lisp, albeit a very useful one.
Furthermore, Steele's book is *a* reference on Common Lisp (even a
very useful one), but is no longer *the* reference. *The* reference
is the rather expensive ($350) ANSI standard, and its much cheaper,
but virtually equally-reliable relative, the Common Lisp HyperSpec,
available on the web from Harlequin.
BTW, there is no ANSI Lisp, as such, that I am aware of, though there
is a primarily European ISO Lisp (again a different dialect).
Many of your questions would likely be resolved satisfactorily by
consulting the Lisp FAQ, which you may easily locate by employing your
favorite search engine. One such location is:
<http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/lisp-faq/top.html>
RD> The Red Hat distribution comes with a Scheme interpreter, however.
RD> I have been informed that Scheme is a superset of Lisp, much as
RD> C++ is to C. Is this correct, partially correct, or merely a
RD> nasty rumor?
Peter> AFAIK, Scheme is more like a subset of Lisp, but with the same
Peter> possibilities (I think it is comparable to the difference C++ /
Peter> Java in which Lisp would correspond to C++ and Scheme to Java).
Scheme is a different dialect of Lisp. It is *not* Common Lisp. It
is *not* Emacs Lisp. However, it is arguably as much `Lisp' as
either. The analogy to C and C++ is pathologically misguided.
RD> Finally, I have easy access to GNU's common lisp interpreter, gcl.
RD> Is there a better alternative that I could afford (i.e. that
RD> doesn't cost any money)?
Peter> gcl implements Common Lisp, so that should be ok. Other
Peter> possibilities are clisp and most important: CMU Lisp. That
Peter> last one is commonly regarded to be the best Lisp environment
Peter> on Unix that doesn't cost any money.
That is how I regarded it until I used it recently. :-) I experienced
some performance problems with the Linux port of CMU CL (CMU Common
Lisp 17f x86-linux 1.3.1) recently. I presume the performance
problems reside in the garbage collector, but I am not expert enough
to render a reliable opinion. I do know that I tweeked the bejesus
out of my code (a lot of I/O) and ultimately got a 3-fold increase in
speed, and about a 40% reduction in memory allocation (from 150
million to 92 million bytes) under CMU CL. Given the impression of
CMU CL that I held, I was stunned to find that CLISP (byte-compiled)
executed the same code on the same data about 30% faster. Allegro CL
was about twice as fast. Your mileage may vary.
--
Russell Senior
·······@teleport.com
Russell Senior <·······@teleport.com> writes:
>
> BTW, there is no ANSI Lisp, as such, that I am aware of
What does this mean? Isn't Allegro an ANSI Lisp?
>
> That is how I regarded it until I used it recently. :-) I experienced
> some performance problems with the Linux port of CMU CL (CMU Common
> Lisp 17f x86-linux 1.3.1) recently. I presume the performance
> problems reside in the garbage collector, but I am not expert enough
> to render a reliable opinion. I do know that I tweeked the bejesus
For what it's worth, there is an experimental version of CMUCL for
Linux that has a generational GC. Compiling the sources to CMUCL
takes only half as long with the generational GC.
> out of my code (a lot of I/O) and ultimately got a 3-fold increase in
> speed, and about a 40% reduction in memory allocation (from 150
> million to 92 million bytes) under CMU CL. Given the impression of
> CMU CL that I held, I was stunned to find that CLISP (byte-compiled)
> executed the same code on the same data about 30% faster. Allegro CL
> was about twice as fast. Your mileage may vary.
I have similar experience with bignums. CLISP was at least as fast as
CMUCL, but I understand CLISP has a very fast bignum implementation.
CMUCL bignum is all in Lisp and somewhat slower.
On the other hand, CMUCL can be easily 2 times faster than CLISP and
Allegro CL for number crunching. Even comparable to optimized C.
(Yes, I have tested this.)
Ray
Russell Senior <·······@teleport.com> wrote:
>BTW, there is no ANSI Lisp, as such, that I am aware of, though there
>is a primarily European ISO Lisp (again a different dialect).
ANSI X3.226:1994 American National Standard for Programming Language
Common LISP (X3J13).
>Many of your questions would likely be resolved satisfactorily by
>consulting the Lisp FAQ, which you may easily locate by employing your
>favorite search engine. One such location is:
>
> <http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/lisp-faq/top.html>
That's where I got the ANSI standard number. :-)
--Tim Smith
In article <············@halcyon.com>, ···@halcyon.com (Tim Smith) wrote:
> Russell Senior <·······@teleport.com> wrote:
> >BTW, there is no ANSI Lisp, as such, that I am aware of, though there
> >is a primarily European ISO Lisp (again a different dialect).
Kent Pitman could tell you more about "ISO Lisp" or "ISLisp".
--
http://www.lavielle.com/~joswig/
>>"RS" == Russell Senior schrieb am 23 Oct 1997 09:32:03 -0700:
Peter> possibilities are clisp and most important: CMU Lisp. That
Peter> last one is commonly regarded to be the best Lisp environment
Peter> on Unix that doesn't cost any money.
RS> That is how I regarded it until I used it recently. :-) I
RS> experienced some performance problems with the Linux port of CMU
RS> CL (CMU Common Lisp 17f x86-linux 1.3.1) recently. I presume the
RS> performance problems reside in the garbage collector, but I am not
RS> expert enough to render a reliable opinion.
You are correct about the garbage collector, but its a x86-problem,
not a Unix-problem, i.e. the same code on a Sparc will run
considerably faster. See www.cons.org.
From what I have seen, if one wants to learn Common Lisp on Linux, one
should consider exactly those three already mentioned options,
i.e. clisp, CMUCL and ACL. I dislike gcl and wouldn't recommed it. In
fact, I use all of the other three systems, but most often use CMUCL
(albeit in a prior version) exclusively. I found CMUCL to be a lot
better than clisp according to my needs, but for learning clisp is
probably a good choice, too. Probably ACL is on the same level as CMUCL,
but my project binds me to CMUCL.
What one should keep in mind: I think only ACL is ANSI CL, while clisp
incorporates just a part of CLtL2 (CMUCL: CLtL2 or just a [big] part
of it).
Holger
PS: Newsgroups adjusted !
On 23 Oct 1997 07:05:15 GMT, ········@wasatch.com (Richard Demanowski)
wrote:
>My Artificial Intelligence class is going to get into a little bit of
>Lisp this semester, and since I've been looking for an excuse to learn
>Lisp ... I have a few questions.
>
>I'm running Red Hat Linux 4.2 (2.0.30 kernel) on my system, and it comes
>with GNU EMACS, which, as I understand it, has a built-in Lisp
>interpreter. I've never used it, since all my programming has, until now,
>been done in C/C++ and Java. I've been given to understand that it's not
>a standard issue Lisp interpreter, either.
That's a fair understanding.
>The Red Hat distribution comes with a Scheme interpreter, however. I have
>been informed that Scheme is a superset of Lisp, much as C++ is to C. Is
>this correct, partially correct, or merely a nasty rumor?
Nasty rumor.
Scheme is *a* LISP language. It takes a somewhat minimalist approach,
and is generally smaller than modern LISPs.
The common view of LISP these days is that something called LISP ought
to be a variant of "Common LISP," which is an ANSI standard for LISP.
It's a rather larger language than Scheme.
>Finally, I have easy access to GNU's common lisp interpreter, gcl. Is
>there a better alternative that I could afford (i.e. that doesn't cost
>any money)?
GCL is, I believe, a compiler. Most LISP systems these days produce
compiled code. They often can do so interactively while you run in an
"interpretive" session, which makes it a little tough to tell that
they're doing so.
CMUCL is fairly highly regarded in its Linux implementation.
CLISP is probably not the fastest CL system, but is fairly portable.
Franz gives away a Linux version of Franz LISP for educational
purposes.
I believe that there's an implementation called AKCL, where "K" is for
"Kyoto;" whether it's up-to-date or not is a good question. It may
nonetheless be usable for course purposes.
--
········@hex.net, <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne> Q: Where would Microsoft
take you today? A: Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis...
Spam bait: ······@cyberpromo.com ··········@netvigator.com ··········@onlinebiz.net
·····@submitking.com ···@llv.com ····@pwrnet.com
In article <··················@news.amrcorp.com>,
········@hex.net (Christopher Browne) writes:
> I believe that there's an implementation called AKCL, where "K" is for
> "Kyoto;" whether it's up-to-date or not is a good question. It may
> nonetheless be usable for course purposes.
GCL is derived from AKCL which was derived from KCL.
Mike McDonald
·······@sgi.com
In article <············@twin.wasatch.com>,
Richard Demanowski <········@wasatch.com> wrote:
>Finally, I have easy access to GNU's common lisp interpreter, gcl. Is
>there a better alternative that I could afford (i.e. that doesn't cost
>any money)?
See:
http://sal.kachinatech.com/F/1/
(Languages & Compilers section) under the Lisp, Prolog, and Scheme
sub-sections, and
http://sal.kachinatech.com/Z/3/
for AI packages available under Linux.
--
Jim Freeman
http://www.sovereign.org/
Richard Demanowski (········@wasatch.com) wrote:
: My Artificial Intelligence class is going to get into a little bit of
: Lisp this semester, and since I've been looking for an excuse to learn
: Lisp ... I have a few questions.
Thank you all for your kind advice.
RichD
--
········@wasatch.com finger for PGP public key
http://www.wasatch.com/~rdemanow/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"First things first, but not necessarily in that order." -- /The Doctor/
Richard Demanowski wrote:
> My Artificial Intelligence class is going to get into a little bit of
> Lisp this semester, and since I've been looking for an excuse to learn
>
> Lisp ... I have a few questions.
>
> I'm running Red Hat Linux 4.2 (2.0.30 kernel) on my system, and it
> comes
> with GNU EMACS, which, as I understand it, has a built-in Lisp
> interpreter. I've never used it, since all my programming has, until
> now,
> been done in C/C++ and Java. I've been given to understand that it's
> not
> a standard issue Lisp interpreter, either.
>
> The Red Hat distribution comes with a Scheme interpreter, however. I
> have
> been informed that Scheme is a superset of Lisp, much as C++ is to C.
> Is
> this correct, partially correct, or merely a nasty rumor?
>
> Finally, I have easy access to GNU's common lisp interpreter, gcl. Is
>
> there a better alternative that I could afford (i.e. that doesn't cost
>
> any money)?
>
> Thank you for your time.
> RichD
> --
> ········@wasatch.com finger for PGP public
> key
> http://www.wasatch.com/~rdemanow/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "First things first, but not necessarily in that order." -- /The
> Doctor/
Scheme is a SUBset of Lisp. It has been a while since I worked with
Scheme and I don't have my manual here so I can't say for sure what
functionality is lacking in Scheme.
I'm new to Linux and haven't had a chance to compare the Emacs Lisp with
Common Lisp.A free version (for non-commercial use) of the full Allegro
Common Lisp 4.3 for Linux is available from http://www.franz.com/. I
haven't tried it. Just saw it advertised on the web.
Jason.
Jason McKee <······@siue.edu> writes:
> Scheme is a SUBset of Lisp. It has been a while since I worked with
> Scheme and I don't have my manual here so I can't say for sure what
> functionality is lacking in Scheme.
Scheme takes a more minimal approach, but it is certainly not a
subset, it just does things differently (and better IMHO).
pax et bonum
John Arley Burns <······@urquan-kohr-ah.mesas.com> writes:
>
> Jason McKee <······@siue.edu> writes:
> > Scheme is a SUBset of Lisp. It has been a while since I worked with
> > Scheme and I don't have my manual here so I can't say for sure what
> > functionality is lacking in Scheme.
>
> Scheme takes a more minimal approach, but it is certainly not a
> subset, it just does things differently (and better IMHO).
WARNING: FLAME BAIT AHEAD!
The FEW that it does, you mean. :)
--
Marco Antoniotti
==============================================================================
California Path Program - UC Berkeley
Richmond Field Station
tel. +1 - 510 - 231 9472
Marco Antoniotti <·······@infiniti.path.berkeley.edu> writes:
> John Arley Burns <······@urquan-kohr-ah.mesas.com> writes:
>
> > Jason McKee <······@siue.edu> writes:
> > > Scheme is a SUBset of Lisp. It has been a while since I worked with
> > > Scheme and I don't have my manual here so I can't say for sure what
> > > functionality is lacking in Scheme.
> >
> > Scheme takes a more minimal approach, but it is certainly not a
> > subset, it just does things differently (and better IMHO).
>
> WARNING: FLAME BAIT AHEAD!
>
> The FEW that it does, you mean. :)
Yes, I'll agree with that. I think the main reason I use Scheme
instead of Lisp is because I find the name of the "progn" statement
so disturbing. In Scheme I can write "begin" and sleep nights...
--
David Fox http://www.cat.nyu.edu/fox xoF divaD
NYU Media Research Lab ···@cat.nyu.edu baL hcraeseR aideM UYN
f o x @ c a t . n y u . e d u (David Fox) writes:
> I think the main reason I use Scheme instead of Lisp is because I
> find the name of the "progn" statement so disturbing. In Scheme I
> can write "begin" and sleep nights...
The trouble is that there is no "end" to this kind of fussing.
In article <···············@graphics.cat.nyu.edu>, f o x @ c a t . n y u .
e d u (David Fox) wrote:
> Marco Antoniotti <·······@infiniti.path.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
> > John Arley Burns <······@urquan-kohr-ah.mesas.com> writes:
> >
> > > Jason McKee <······@siue.edu> writes:
> > > > Scheme is a SUBset of Lisp. It has been a while since I worked with
> > > > Scheme and I don't have my manual here so I can't say for sure what
> > > > functionality is lacking in Scheme.
> > >
> > > Scheme takes a more minimal approach, but it is certainly not a
> > > subset, it just does things differently (and better IMHO).
> >
> > WARNING: FLAME BAIT AHEAD!
> >
> > The FEW that it does, you mean. :)
>
> Yes, I'll agree with that. I think the main reason I use Scheme
> instead of Lisp is because I find the name of the "progn" statement
> so disturbing. In Scheme I can write "begin" and sleep nights...
Put a utils file in your system definitions.
Taking care of that.
(defmacro begin ...)
...Whatever
;-)
--
http://www.lavielle.com/~joswig/
f o x @ c a t . n y u . e d u wrote about
"Re: Lisp interpreter for Linux":
>
> Yes, I'll agree with that. I think the main reason I use Scheme
> instead of Lisp is because I find the name of the "progn" statement
> so disturbing. In Scheme I can write "begin" and sleep nights...
Isn't it trivial to write a 'begin' macro ? ;-)
Dieter Menszner
f o x @ c a t . n y u . e d u (David Fox) writes:
> Yes, I'll agree with that. I think the main reason I use Scheme
> instead of Lisp is because I find the name of the "progn" statement
> so disturbing. In Scheme I can write "begin" and sleep nights...
(defmacro begin (&rest forms)
`(progn ,@forms))
Here. Now you'll be able to write Lisp and sleep well.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <·······@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Unspeakable horrors from outer space paralyze the living and
resurrect the dead!
In article <············@twin.wasatch.com>,
········@wasatch.com (Richard Demanowski) wrote:
>
> My Artificial Intelligence class is going to get into a little bit of
> Lisp this semester, and since I've been looking for an excuse to learn
> Lisp ... I have a few questions.
>
.........clip...........
> Thank you for your time.
> RichD
> --
> ········@wasatch.com finger for PGP public key
> http://www.wasatch.com/~rdemanow/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "First things first, but not necessarily in that order." -- /The Doctor/
Hi Richard, I have the same needs. Please let me know what Lisp
interpreter are you using. I have just donwloaded GNU Lisp. I hear here
about Allegro CL, and CLisp and CMULisp. So i will try to get all this
interpreter and test all of them. Thanks
Oliver Schulze
······@pla.net.py
Asuncion-Paraguay
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Oliver Schulze <······@pla.net.py> writes:
>In article <············@twin.wasatch.com>,
> ········@wasatch.com (Richard Demanowski) wrote:
>>
>> My Artificial Intelligence class is going to get into a little bit of
>> Lisp this semester, and since I've been looking for an excuse to learn
>> Lisp ... I have a few questions.
>>
>.........clip...........
>> Thank you for your time.
>> RichD
>> --
>> ········@wasatch.com finger for PGP public key
>> http://www.wasatch.com/~rdemanow/
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "First things first, but not necessarily in that order." -- /The Doctor/
>Hi Richard, I have the same needs. Please let me know what Lisp
>interpreter are you using. I have just donwloaded GNU Lisp. I hear here
>about Allegro CL, and CLisp and CMULisp. So i will try to get all this
>interpreter and test all of them. Thanks
Unfortunatly, none of the systems you mention is an interpreter.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
···············@wavehh.hanse.de http://www.cons.org/cracauer/
BSD User Group Hamburg/Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/
In article <·····················@wavehh.hanse.de>,
········@wavehh.hanse.de wrote:
>
> Oliver Schulze <······@pla.net.py> writes:
>
> >In article <············@twin.wasatch.com>,
> > ········@wasatch.com (Richard Demanowski) wrote:
> >>
> >> My Artificial Intelligence class is going to get into a little bit of
> >> Lisp this semester, and since I've been looking for an excuse to learn
> >> Lisp ... I have a few questions.
> >>
> >.........clip...........
> >> Thank you for your time.
> >> RichD
> >> --
> >> ········@wasatch.com finger for PGP public key
> >> http://www.wasatch.com/~rdemanow/
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> "First things first, but not necessarily in that order." -- /The Doctor/
>
> >Hi Richard, I have the same needs. Please let me know what Lisp
> >interpreter are you using. I have just donwloaded GNU Lisp. I hear here
> >about Allegro CL, and CLisp and CMULisp. So i will try to get all this
> >interpreter and test all of them. Thanks
>
> Unfortunatly, none of the systems you mention is an interpreter.
>
> Martin
> --
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> ···············@wavehh.hanse.de http://www.cons.org/cracauer/
> BSD User Group Hamburg/Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/
Well I'm not shure if all of this program are interpreters. I'm sure of
this packages: -----------clisp---------------- (from clisp.lsm at
sunsite.unc.edu)
[ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/devel/lang/lisp/clisp.lsm] Title: CLISP
Common Lisp Version: 1996-07-22 Entered-date: 1996-07-25 Description:
CLISP is a Common Lisp implementation, supporting most of the ANSI
standard. Includes an interpreter, a compiler, a CLOS implementation, a
foreign language interface, fast bignums. Packages running in CLISP
include CLX and Garnet. ------------gcl----------------- (from gcl.lsm at
sunsite.unc.edu)
[ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/devel/lang/lisp/gcl-1.0.bin.lsm] Title:
GCL (GNU Common LISP) binaries Version: 1.0 Entered-date: 9-20-94
Description: Binaries for GCL-1.0, the GNU common LISP interpreter
Keywords: GCL LISP CLISP --------------------------------- I will start
with gcl, good luck
Oliver Schulze
······@pla.net.py
Asuncion-Paraguay
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Oliver Schulze <······@pla.net.py> writes:
>> Unfortunatly, none of the systems you mention is an interpreter.
>>
>> Martin
>> --
>> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>> ···············@wavehh.hanse.de http://www.cons.org/cracauer/
>> BSD User Group Hamburg/Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/
>Well I'm not shure if all of this program are interpreters. I'm sure of
>this packages: -----------clisp---------------- (from clisp.lsm at
>sunsite.unc.edu)
>[ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/devel/lang/lisp/clisp.lsm] Title: CLISP
>Common Lisp Version: 1996-07-22 Entered-date: 1996-07-25 Description:
>CLISP is a Common Lisp implementation, supporting most of the ANSI
>standard. Includes an interpreter, a compiler, a CLOS implementation, a
>foreign language interface, fast bignums. Packages running in CLISP
>include CLX and Garnet. ------------gcl----------------- (from gcl.lsm at
>sunsite.unc.edu)
>[ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/devel/lang/lisp/gcl-1.0.bin.lsm] Title:
>GCL (GNU Common LISP) binaries Version: 1.0 Entered-date: 9-20-94
>Description: Binaries for GCL-1.0, the GNU common LISP interpreter
>Keywords: GCL LISP CLISP --------------------------------- I will start
>with gcl, good luck
The Linux LSMs usually doesn't contain very accurate information. I
don't call a bytecode machine an interpreter, BTW.
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
···············@wavehh.hanse.de http://www.cons.org/cracauer/
BSD User Group Hamburg/Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/