As to the question whether "MAC lisp" refers to the MACLISP dialect or
to MCL (Macintosh Common Lisp), ít should not be too difficult to
determine what you have.
MCL only runs on the Macintosh platform (Mac OS and a special variant
of Unix which only runs on Macs). I am not aware that there was ever
any MACLISP system designed for the Macintosh platform (somebody
please correct me if I'm wrong.)
If the code was designed to run on Macs, then it should be safe to
assume that you do not have MACLISP code. If the code was designed to
run on some other system than the Mac, then "MAC lisp" should mean the
dialect of lisp MACLISP.
One other indication is the age of the code. MACLISP is an older
dialect than Common Lisp, the current standard. I wasn't around during
the MACLISP days, so I can't give you a chronology, but there are
people on the newsgroup who would be able to help here. There should
be a date at which if the code is older, the code can't be Common
Lisp. If the code is newer, it becomes increasingly unlikely that it
would be MACLISP.
As far as the already mentioned systems for generating C code from
Lisp code go, the only one that I have actually tried to use is CLiCC
(freely distributable):
http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~wg/clicc.html
CLiCC is compatible with a large subset of CLtL1, an earlier version
of Common Lisp than the ANSI standard (first came CLtL1, then CLtL2,
then ANSI). The docs mention several versions of lisp systems on which
CLiCC has been tested. You would either need a functioning CLtL1 lisp
to get CLiCC running in order to translate the code to C with CLiCC,
or you would need someone who knows lisp well to try to get CLiCC
running on a more modern Common Lisp. In this second case the code to
be translated would still presumably have to be CLtL1 compatible
(Common Lisp code which sticks to the basics is likely to run on CLtL1
as well as ANSI). I wasn't able to Get CliCC to run on a post-CLtL1
Common Lisp system quickly and easily and ended up giving up. There is
also the question as to whether the (large) subset of lisp which CLiCC
supports contains everything you need. My impression is that using
CliCC would only be feasible if you have someone available to you who
could do everything, taking the Lisp code and producing C code for
you.
Eclipse certainly looks interesting, I have no experience with it
though. The docs are at:
http://www.elwoodcorp.com/eclipse/eclipse.htm
Hope to have been of help,
George Smith
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
> >
> > ······@lavielle.com (Rainer Joswig) writes:
> >
> > > In article <···············@world.std.com>, Kent M Pitman
> > > <······@world.std.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Howard R. Stearns" <······@elwood.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jim Fisher wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a customer who has lisp code (MAC lisp) that he needs to be
> > > > > > converted to "C" code
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > The Maclisp dialect is a now obsolete.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm. I understood Jim to be asking about Macintosh Common Lisp, which
> > > > is a modern implementation of CL not to be confused with MACLISP,
> > > > which you're right is obsolete.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe he could clarify.
> > >
> > > Why would he have to reimplement Lisp code in C to make it
> > > running on a PC? There are Lisp systems available for the
> > > PC. LispWorks for Windows for example has royalty free
> > > delivery of Lisp applications and the price is affordable.
> >
> > He wouldn't. That's why I wanted him to clarify.
> >
> > But it is possible that he was confused on this point.
>
>
> Thanks for all of the help folks...
>
> As I stated in the beginning, I am lisp iliterate... so am not sure what
> MAC lisp it is. The reasons why customer wants it converted to C are:
> 1) Lisp is runnming slow
> 2) The folks that are going to maintain and extend the project are not
> lisp trained.
> 3) The other portions of the project that need to be integrated with the
> lisp code are written in C.
>
> Anyway, thanks, this gives me some areas to look.
>
> Jim Fisher