Hey all,
At http://www.lizp.com, there's info and a demo download of a
lisp language system for Windows (Win32?) programming. I
pulled a copy which was quite small (less than 200K compressed)
and tried it out, but it complained about a missing resource/device.
I was wondering if anyone here managed to get it to work
and if so, if they did anything special and what their
opinions of it were.
Regards,
Ahmed
--
Ahmed
To respond via email, send email to punkrock at cs dot uh dot edu
You were probably running it on a pre-OSR2 version of Win95.
Previous versions of Lizp did not start under such systems,
because it was statically linked to a function (GetDiskFreeSpaceEx)
which wasn't included until OSR2 in Win95 (it's always been
available in NT4).
The current download on www.lizp.com is updated to use
dynamic linking instead, and hence runs under Win95, all versions.
Regards
Sebastian Stache
······@exploited.barmy.army wrote in message
<············@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>...
>
>Hey all,
>
>At http://www.lizp.com, there's info and a demo download of a
>lisp language system for Windows (Win32?) programming. I
>pulled a copy which was quite small (less than 200K compressed)
>and tried it out, but it complained about a missing resource/device.
>
>I was wondering if anyone here managed to get it to work
>and if so, if they did anything special and what their
>opinions of it were.
>
>Regards,
>Ahmed
>
>--
>Ahmed
>
>To respond via email, send email to punkrock at cs dot uh dot edu
From their own home page.
> Lizp does not conform to any LISP Standard such as ANSI CL or
> CLtL2. The vocabulary is a union of subsets from many implementations.
> Of some 240 built-in functions, half are Win32, text processing and
> tcp/ip specific, the rest being more or less standard LISP functions.
> More or less, since function names, syntax and yielded values often
> differs from, or even conflicts with, standard LISP equivalents.
> Lizp binds free variables dynamically. Lizp offers no support for
> delayed evaluation, nor for object oriented programming. In fact, had
> it been possible, Lizp would offer no support for assignment
> whatsoever, setq included. The interpreter is tail recursive.
--
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - (0)6 - 68 80 79 23, fax. +39 - (0)6 - 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it
Marco Antoniotti wrote in message ...
>
>From their own home page.
>
>> Lizp does not conform to any LISP Standard such as ANSI CL or
>> CLtL2. The vocabulary is a union of subsets from many implementations.
>> Of some 240 built-in functions, half are Win32, text processing and
>> tcp/ip specific, the rest being more or less standard LISP functions.
>> More or less, since function names, syntax and yielded values often
>> differs from, or even conflicts with, standard LISP equivalents.
>
>> Lizp binds free variables dynamically. Lizp offers no support for
>> delayed evaluation, nor for object oriented programming. In fact, had
>> it been possible, Lizp would offer no support for assignment
>> whatsoever, setq included. The interpreter is tail recursive.
Hey, at least they're honest about it amd tell you up front (On their home
page, no less!). They've also chosen the one true syntax (i.e., an almost
total absence of one). So I'm not going to ding a fellow traveller in the
good fight. Heavy syntax sucks and anyone who wants to do a product that
looks like Lisp is OK with me. Now, the lack of static binding, I could
argue with :-)...
--
Frank A. Adrian
First DataBank
············@firstdatabank.com (W)
······@europa.com (H)
This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent
company.
Right. Also, and please prove me wrong if I deserve it,
Lizp interprets LISP code faster than any other interpreter
under NT 4.
Regards
Sebastian Stache
Marco Antoniotti wrote in message ...
>
>From their own home page.
>
>> Lizp does not conform to any LISP Standard such as ANSI CL or
>> CLtL2. The vocabulary is a union of subsets from many implementations.
>> Of some 240 built-in functions, half are Win32, text processing and
>> tcp/ip specific, the rest being more or less standard LISP functions.
>> More or less, since function names, syntax and yielded values often
>> differs from, or even conflicts with, standard LISP equivalents.
>
>> Lizp binds free variables dynamically. Lizp offers no support for
>> delayed evaluation, nor for object oriented programming. In fact, had
>> it been possible, Lizp would offer no support for assignment
>> whatsoever, setq included. The interpreter is tail recursive.
>
>--
>Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
>PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
>tel. +39 - (0)6 - 68 80 79 23, fax. +39 - (0)6 - 68 80 79 26
>http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it
"Sebastian Stache" <···@sbbs.se> writes:
> Right. Also, and please prove me wrong if I deserve it,
> Lizp interprets LISP code faster than any other interpreter
> under NT 4.
I have to correct you: "Lizp interprets Lizp LISP dialect code faster
than any other interpreter under NT 4."
I can always use the ACL compiler and get very fast code for a more
"standard" LISP dialect under WNT4.
--
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - (0)6 - 68 80 79 23, fax. +39 - (0)6 - 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it
Marco Antoniotti <·······@galvani.parades.rm.cnr.it> writes:
> "Sebastian Stache" <···@sbbs.se> writes:
>
> > Right. Also, and please prove me wrong if I deserve it,
> > Lizp interprets LISP code faster than any other interpreter
> > under NT 4.
>
> I have to correct you: "Lizp interprets Lizp LISP dialect code faster
> than any other interpreter under NT 4."
Sorry for the second posting, but I should have written: "Lizp
interprets Lizp LISP dialect code faster than any other Lizp LISP
dialect interpreter under NT 4."
>
> I can always use the ACL compiler and get very fast code for a more
> "standard" LISP dialect under WNT4.
>
--
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - (0)6 - 68 80 79 23, fax. +39 - (0)6 - 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it
In article <··············@galvani.parades.rm.cnr.it>,
Marco Antoniotti <·······@galvani.parades.rm.cnr.it> wrote:
>Sorry for the second posting, but I should have written: "Lizp
>interprets Lizp LISP dialect code faster than any other Lizp LISP
>dialect interpreter under NT 4."
Which is a pretty vacuous statement, since Lizp is presumably the only Lizp
LISP dialect interpreter.
Seriously, the Lizp people are not promoting this as a general-purpose Lisp
implementation. It looks like it's intended to be a Win32 scripting
language that uses Lisp syntax. It's competing against things like Visual
Basic and Tcl/Tk, not other Lisps. Most special-purpose Lisp
implementations don't make any attempt to conform to standards; their web
page compares them with AutoLisp, and other examples are GNU Emacs Lisp and
FrameMaker (I think this has a Lisp extension language, but maybe it's
another fancy word processor I'm thinking of). Dynamic binding is also
common on these "toy" Lisp implementations (not to mention other scripting
languages, such as Perl), as it's easier to implement in interpreters; and
before you put it down too much, remember that Maclisp, one of the most
popular Lisps before Common Lisp, did dynamic binding in the interpreter.
--
Barry Margolin, ······@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 08:03:40 GMT, Barry Margolin <······@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
> In article <··············@galvani.parades.rm.cnr.it>,
> Marco Antoniotti <·······@galvani.parades.rm.cnr.it> wrote:
> >Sorry for the second posting, but I should have written: "Lizp
> >interprets Lizp LISP dialect code faster than any other Lizp LISP
> >dialect interpreter under NT 4."
>
> Which is a pretty vacuous statement, since Lizp is presumably the only Lizp
> LISP dialect interpreter.
>
> Seriously, the Lizp people are not promoting this as a general-purpose Lisp
> implementation. It looks like it's intended to be a Win32 scripting
> language that uses Lisp syntax. It's competing against things like Visual
> Basic and Tcl/Tk, not other Lisps. Most special-purpose Lisp
> implementations don't make any attempt to conform to standards; their web
> page compares them with AutoLisp, and other examples are GNU Emacs Lisp and
> FrameMaker (I think this has a Lisp extension language, but maybe it's
> another fancy word processor I'm thinking of).
You're thinking of Interleaf.
__Jason