From: Mark Watson
Subject: Cheapest Windows deployment of compiled LISP programs?
Date: 
Message-ID: <350ce71d.22004480@news.sedona.net>
I have some old Common LISP code that I would
like to distribute as freeware or shareware
for Windows 95/NT.  What is the cheapest
commercial compiler (with hopefully no runtime
fees)?

Thanks for any info,
Mark


*********************************************
*   Mark Watson, author (10 books on AI,    *
*   Java, and C++) and a Java consultant    *
*   See www.markwatson.com for free stuff!  *
*********************************************

From: Will Hartung
Subject: Re: Cheapest Windows deployment of compiled LISP programs?
Date: 
Message-ID: <vfr750Epvr3v.IHt@netcom.com>
·····@markwatson.com (Mark Watson) writes:

>I have some old Common LISP code that I would
>like to distribute as freeware or shareware
>for Windows 95/NT.  What is the cheapest
>commercial compiler (with hopefully no runtime
>fees)?

There are two major commercial vendors of CL for Windows: 
   o Franz's Allegro Common Lisp 
   o Harlequins LispWorks for Windows.

You can download a crippled version of ACL (ACL Lite) from Franz's
website, and Harelquin has a FreeLisp that can be downloaded.

If you just wish to port source code to one of these implementations,
then there are no worries, assuming the implementations are enough to
handle your code (ACL Lite has a limited heap, for example).

If you don't wish to distribute source code, then I would reckon that
Harlequins LispWorks for Windows may be your best choice. It's running
for $499, and has a royalty free distribution license. I would say
that it's a practically unlimited distribution license, but I reckon
they might be a tad grumpy if you distributed "Bob's Lisp Development
System" which consisted of their image with your splash screen. But
you are allowed to distribute EVAL in your code.

(Speaking of mud, I think both Borland and Microsoft don't let you
write C Development systems with their C compilers.)

If you were extraordinarily cheap, and willing to make your users jump
through some hoops, the ACL Lite will let you write Lisp Objects out
to files and read them, including compiled functions. It won't save
the BINDINGS, but it'll save the compiled code.

So, technically, you can write a routine to save off your compiled
functions, and then another source routine to read them back into
their new bindings. Yeah, it would be pain in the neck for both you
and your users for less that trivial code, but, it's cheap and would
probably work. I dunno if there is any license for distributing the
compiled code. Is it code, or is it data?

Finally, there is a fellow floating around C.L.L that has a system
(Eclipse? I think) that compiles Lisp into C. I'm pretty sure he
recently announced a Linux version, and I'm sure a 95/NT port is right
behind that. Perhaps someone else has the details on that.

Good Luck!

-- 
Will Hartung - Rancho Santa Margarita. It's a dry heat. ······@netcom.com
1990 VFR750 - VFR=Very Red    "Ho, HaHa, Dodge, Parry, Spin, HA! THRUST!"
1993 Explorer - Cage? Hell, it's a prison.                    -D. Duck
From: Howard R. Stearns
Subject: Re: Cheapest Windows deployment of compiled LISP programs?
Date: 
Message-ID: <350D79CF.1A2F@elwood.com>
Will Hartung wrote:
> 
> ·····@markwatson.com (Mark Watson) writes:
> 
> >I have some old Common LISP code that I would
> >like to distribute as freeware or shareware
> >for Windows 95/NT.  What is the cheapest
> >commercial compiler (with hopefully no runtime
> >fees)?
> 
> There are two major commercial vendors of CL for Windows:
>    o Franz's Allegro Common Lisp
>    o Harlequins LispWorks for Windows.
> 
> You can download a crippled version of ACL (ACL Lite) from Franz's
> website, and Harelquin has a FreeLisp that can be downloaded.
> 
> If you just wish to port source code to one of these implementations,
> then there are no worries, assuming the implementations are enough to
> handle your code (ACL Lite has a limited heap, for example).
> 
> If you don't wish to distribute source code, then I would reckon that
> Harlequins LispWorks for Windows may be your best choice. It's running
> for $499, and has a royalty free distribution license. I would say
> that it's a practically unlimited distribution license, but I reckon
> they might be a tad grumpy if you distributed "Bob's Lisp Development
> System" which consisted of their image with your splash screen. But
> you are allowed to distribute EVAL in your code.
> 
> (Speaking of mud, I think both Borland and Microsoft don't let you
> write C Development systems with their C compilers.)
> 
> If you were extraordinarily cheap, and willing to make your users jump
> through some hoops, the ACL Lite will let you write Lisp Objects out
> to files and read them, including compiled functions. It won't save
> the BINDINGS, but it'll save the compiled code.
> 
> So, technically, you can write a routine to save off your compiled
> functions, and then another source routine to read them back into
> their new bindings. Yeah, it would be pain in the neck for both you
> and your users for less that trivial code, but, it's cheap and would
> probably work. I dunno if there is any license for distributing the
> compiled code. Is it code, or is it data?
> 
> Finally, there is a fellow floating around C.L.L that has a system
> (Eclipse? I think) that compiles Lisp into C. I'm pretty sure he
> recently announced a Linux version, and I'm sure a 95/NT port is right
> behind that. Perhaps someone else has the details on that.

I wasn't going to respond to the original poster, because Eclipse is NOT
yet available for 95/NT.  But as long as you asked....

Eclipse Common Lisp does compile Lisp into C, which can then be linked
to a C-callable library.  (The library can also be used directly from
hand written C programs.)  The generated C code then be called directly
by other C code in complex multi-language applications.  

Applications are not "crippled" and can call EVAL, COMPILE, etc. 
Moreover, those that don't look like a Lisp system (eg. don't have a
top-level Lisp listener or compiler) can be distributed royalty-free.

Eclipse is $500 on Sun, HP and Linux. (License is per machine, any
number of users.)

We are indeed working on Windows-NT/95, but we don't want to "pull a
Microsoft" and make everybody stop exploring other options by selling
something we don't have.  We EXPECT it to be ready within a couple of
months, but we won't sell it until it's ready.  What we will do,
however, is allow any current Linux Eclipse users to change to Windows
versions when it does become available.

See http://www.elwood.com/eclipse-info

> 
> Good Luck!
> 
> --
> Will Hartung - Rancho Santa Margarita. It's a dry heat. ······@netcom.com
> 1990 VFR750 - VFR=Very Red    "Ho, HaHa, Dodge, Parry, Spin, HA! THRUST!"
> 1993 Explorer - Cage? Hell, it's a prison.                    -D. Duck
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: Cheapest Windows deployment of compiled LISP programs?
Date: 
Message-ID: <6ekphg$d1o$6@blue.hex.net>
On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:16:55 -0600, Howard R. Stearns
<······@elwood.com> wrote: 
>We are indeed working on Windows-NT/95, but we don't want to "pull a
>Microsoft" and make everybody stop exploring other options by selling
>something we don't have.  We EXPECT it to be ready within a couple of
>months, but we won't sell it until it's ready.  What we will do,
>however, is allow any current Linux Eclipse users to change to Windows
>versions when it does become available.

Would that be intended to imply that the Linux version of Eclipse will
cease to be supported such that Linux users would be "required" to
change to Windows versions, or merely that users of non-Windows
versions will be *permitted* to change over to a Windows license?

-- 
Win32 sucks so hard it could pull matter out of a Black Hole. -- Pohl Longsine
········@hex.net -  <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
From: Howard R. Stearns
Subject: Re: Cheapest Windows deployment of compiled LISP programs?
Date: 
Message-ID: <350EF255.34D0@elwood.com>
Christopher Browne wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:16:55 -0600, Howard R. Stearns
> <······@elwood.com> wrote:
> >We are indeed working on Windows-NT/95, but we don't want to "pull a
> >Microsoft" and make everybody stop exploring other options by selling
> >something we don't have.  We EXPECT it to be ready within a couple of
> >months, but we won't sell it until it's ready.  What we will do,
> >however, is allow any current Linux Eclipse users to change to Windows
> >versions when it does become available.
> 
> Would that be intended to imply that the Linux version of Eclipse will
> cease to be supported such that Linux users would be "required" to
> change to Windows versions, or merely that users of non-Windows
> versions will be *permitted* to change over to a Windows license?

The latter.  Linux and all our other Unix platforms will continue to be
supported, regardless of any Windows activities.  

The point of allowing people to switch licenses is simply that some
people develop on Linux but need to deploy on Windows.  Some of these
people have expressed an interest in working with Eclipse on Linux now
in order to get up to speed with the technology, and then deploying
applications on Windows when Eclipse becomes available for Windows.  The
offer to let them switch is to just make it easy for those following
this scenario.

No one at Elwood is likely to suggest that people should be forced to
use Windows.  Have you met my boss....
From: Frank A. Adrian
Subject: Re: Cheapest Windows deployment of compiled LISP programs?
Date: 
Message-ID: <6em43n$92k$1@client2.news.psi.net>
Sam Steingold wrote in message ...
>
>What about windows licensees wishing to convert to Linux?

If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your
destiny...
Just say NO to Windows.
--
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.
From: Martin Rodgers
Subject: Re: Cheapest Windows deployment of compiled LISP programs?
Date: 
Message-ID: <MPG.f78b3b78316456f989999@news.demon.co.uk>
Frank A. Adrian wheezed these wise words:

> Just say NO to Windows.

Just say yes. Some of us are paid to use Windows.

My choice might be something else, but since we're talking about a 
$500 product, we might as well talk professional rather than personal.
For $500 I could buy a new HD and install Linux, then use CMUCL and 
many other Lisps not yet available for Win32.

However, pay me to use something other Windows, and I'll stop asking 
for Lisp compilers for Win32. ;) BTW, I bought LWW last year...
-- 
Please note: my email address is munged; You can never browse enough
                  "Oh knackers!" - Mark Radcliffe
From: Bulent Murtezaoglu
Subject: Re: Cheapest Windows deployment of compiled LISP programs?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87ogz5897h.fsf@isttest.bogus>
>>>>> "MR" == Martin Rodgers <···@this.email.address.intentionally.left.crap.wildcard.demon.co.uk> writes:

    MR> Just say yes. Some of us are paid to use Windows.

Yes, unfortunately.

    MR> ... However, pay me to use something other Windows, and I'll stop
    MR> asking for Lisp compilers for Win32. ;) ...

Ah but the point is to develop under Linux and deploy under Windows.
You are getting paid for sth. that runs under windows -- does anybody
care where you develop it?  (if they do, just conceal a Unix box somewhere
and run an X server on NT).  

I wish we could pay Franz to give us CLIM under Linux.  

BM
From: Martin Rodgers
Subject: Re: Cheapest Windows deployment of compiled LISP programs?
Date: 
Message-ID: <MPG.f78e7f43a1530d998999c@news.demon.co.uk>
Bulent Murtezaoglu wheezed these wise words:

> Ah but the point is to develop under Linux and deploy under Windows.
> You are getting paid for sth. that runs under windows -- does anybody
> care where you develop it?  (if they do, just conceal a Unix box somewhere
> and run an X server on NT).  

If the relevant tools ran under Linux, this might be possible. Alas, 
this is not the case. Anyway, the tools work well enough. Using Linux 
won't automatically improve development. When you must reverse 
engineer tools already available, you lose a lot of time. This may 
shock some people, but sometimes deadlines make such solutions less 
than practical. Whatever the alleged (this is highly subjective IME) 
disadvantages of using Windows may be, we should also consider the 
time spent creating a tool for Linux that will do the same thing. 
While there may be advantages to having such a tool, you still need 
some advance notice of a requirement for that tool, and this will not 
always be available. IME, it rarely ever is.

It's equally difficult to develop Mac apps using Windows. People may 
succeed, but I doubt they'll say it was easy or that the result was 
impressive. Some operating systems are just too different, and some 
apps will be too dependant on features and tools not available for 
both platforms.

Of course, if you're really determined to do it, you could just opt 
for the lowest common denominator. Just make your user interface 
assume terminal characterstics and similarly basic assumptions about 
I/O etc, and your app will run under DOS, Windows, Unix, Mac, Archy, 
ST, and many other platforms. You'll still need to convince your 
client/employer/users, but that's the only real hard part.

Alternately, find an employer (or work for yourself) and clients who 
use Linux, and write software for it. Meanwhile, I'm still paid to use 
whatever OS my employer and clients use. If you'd like to pay me to 
use Linux, please let me know.
 
> I wish we could pay Franz to give us CLIM under Linux.  
 
I expect they're listening.
-- 
Please note: my email address is munged; You can never browse enough
                  "Oh knackers!" - Mark Radcliffe
From: Bulent Murtezaoglu
Subject: Re: Cheapest Windows deployment of compiled LISP programs?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87n2ep8163.fsf@isttest.bogus>
>>>>> "MR" == Martin Rodgers <···@this.email.address.intentionally.left.crap.wildcard.demon.co.uk> writes:

You gave a good reply to my partly tongue-in-cheek comment.

    MR> [...] If the relevant tools ran under Linux, this might be
    MR> possible. Alas, this is not the case. Anyway, the tools work
    MR> well enough. Using Linux won't automatically improve
    MR> development. 

Of course not.  But neither will learning Windows tools from scratch when 
you have a deadline.  Linux is a decent solution if you like to have a Unix 
environment with X available on cheap hardware.  Why would you need that?
If gcc, emacs, gdb and such really do what you want, and on top of it you 
have an X environment well tuned to your taste, why not?  For Lispers who 
live in Emacs and, say, Allegro's fi the 'tools' are almost all there in 
Linux.   

    MR> [...]When you must reverse engineer tools already
    MR> available, you lose a lot of time. This may shock some people,
    MR> but sometimes deadlines make such solutions less than
    MR> practical. 

Yes.  But conceivably if you don't have to have the latest version number,
you only need to get things working once [a year?].

    MR> [...] Whatever the alleged (this is highly subjective
    MR> IME) disadvantages of using Windows may be, we should also
    MR> consider the time spent creating a tool for Linux that will do
    MR> the same thing.  

I think much of the resistance to Windows is psychological.  NT is
reasonably solid and if one had to one could get used to the
environment.  The GUI is somewhat flawed IMHO, and the endless menus
and dialogs do get in the way.  I positively detest the way warning
dialog boxes grab keyboard focus (I know about X-mouse, it broke other
things for me).  Could whine more but this is a Lisp NG.  

cheers,

BM
From: Martin Rodgers
Subject: Re: Cheapest Windows deployment of compiled LISP programs?
Date: 
Message-ID: <MPG.f79ef6e7acf4c199899a6@news.demon.co.uk>
Bulent Murtezaoglu wheezed these wise words:

> Of course not.  But neither will learning Windows tools from scratch when 
> you have a deadline.

I think you'll find that some people already use Windows. ;)

> Yes.  But conceivably if you don't have to have the latest version number,
> you only need to get things working once [a year?].

You may still need full functionality, and of course _identical_
functionality. This takes some effort.

Anyway, I'm not the one you need to convince. I'm just giving one of 
the many reasons why some people choose to use tools _they already 
have_. Not that any of this is relevant to this thread.
 
> I think much of the resistance to Windows is psychological.  NT is
> reasonably solid and if one had to one could get used to the
> environment.  The GUI is somewhat flawed IMHO, and the endless menus
> and dialogs do get in the way.  I positively detest the way warning
> dialog boxes grab keyboard focus (I know about X-mouse, it broke other
> things for me).  Could whine more but this is a Lisp NG.  

In some people's eyes, those "endless menus and dialogs" are a major 
feature. As you said, this is a Lisp ng. So all I need to say is that 
people are paid to use Windows. Some programmers don't write the spec 
for the software they write. It ain't simply an OS issue.

This sounds susiciously like my response to all the other advocacy 
arguments I encounter. ;) In my own time, I choose to use Lisp. I'm 
paid to use anything but Lisp. Go figure.

Meanwhile [checking the subject], I see that this thread began with a 
question about cheap Lisps for Windows. I just love it when people 
forget why a question was asked, and instead rephrase it as something 
more to their liking. If only the real world was so easy to fix...

This Lisp I'm currently using is a Win16 port of SCM. (I started using 
it a few years ago, before I got NT.) In spite of this, it has some 
very nice GUI features. Not bad for a beta.

Another "cheap" Lisp for Windows is the evaluation version of ACL/PC,  
which is available from the Franz website. I love the editor. It even 
works under Windows 3.11 on a machine with only 16 MB of RAM.
-- 
Please note: my email address is munged; You can never browse enough
                   "Fancy a brew?" -- Marc Riley
From: Howard R. Stearns
Subject: Re: Cheapest Windows deployment of compiled LISP programs?
Date: 
Message-ID: <350EF455.72A2@elwood.com>
Sam Steingold wrote:
> 
> >>>> In a very interesting message <·············@elwood.com>
> >>>> Sent on Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:16:55 -0600
> >>>> Honorable "Howard R. Stearns" <······@elwood.com> writes
> >>>> on the subject of "Re: Cheapest Windows deployment of compiled LISP programs?":
>  >> What we will do,
>  >> however, is allow any current Linux Eclipse users to change to Windows
>  >> versions when it does become available.
> 
> What about windows licensees wishing to convert to Linux?

(Are you really asking, or just musing?..)

In general, Eclipse licenses allow indefinite use of the product on a
given machine, and Elwood does not generally allow people to gain
multiple licenses by "trading in" the old ones.  Buying Eclipse/Linux
before Eclipse/Windows is available and then switching it, is a specfic
exception.  

We are happy to try to work with customer who have specfic needs. 
Contact us if you have a problem we may be able to help with. 

  http://www.elwood.com/eclipse-info
  mailto: ·····@elwood.com
  US telephone: 414-764-7500