In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jon Dyte <········@totient.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> http://www.seyboldseminars.com/News/1999/990701.html
Somebody should buy the Lisp part. Sigh.
······@lavielle.com (Rainer Joswig) writes:
> In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jon Dyte <········@totient.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > http://www.seyboldseminars.com/News/1999/990701.html
>
> Somebody should buy the Lisp part. Sigh.
In classic lisp industry form, I'm expecting that to go down with the
ship, or get sold off to someone who will never use it and not be
capable of maintaining it.
Sorry, just feeling particularly cynical this fine morning.
My condolences for everyone working there who put in all of that
energy and time.
--
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
I say woe unto those who are wise in their own eyes, and yet
imprudent in 'dem outside -Sizzla
On 03 Jul 1999 10:52:42 -0500, Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com> posted:
>······@lavielle.com (Rainer Joswig) writes:
>
>> In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jon Dyte <········@totient.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > http://www.seyboldseminars.com/News/1999/990701.html
>>
>> Somebody should buy the Lisp part. Sigh.
>
>In classic lisp industry form, I'm expecting that to go down with the
>ship, or get sold off to someone who will never use it and not be
>capable of maintaining it.
>
>Sorry, just feeling particularly cynical this fine morning.
>
>My condolences for everyone working there who put in all of that
>energy and time.
Hmm. This might be an opportune moment for jwz to make use of some of
the value coming from some of those options he doubtless had at Netscape.
I definitely get the feeling that he was one who appreciated CL.
Of course, the *forceable* problem with such ideas is that it is entirely
possible that Harlequin had "components" that were licensed from outside
that thus wouldn't "belong" to a would-be purchaser.
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
········@hex.net - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
Craig Brozefsky wrote:
>
> ······@lavielle.com (Rainer Joswig) writes:
>
> > In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jon Dyte <········@totient.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.seyboldseminars.com/News/1999/990701.html
> >
...
> Sorry, just feeling particularly cynical this fine morning.
To put a not quite so cynical spin on this....
At least under US Law, Bankruptcy does not mean "liquidation". It means you get
temporary debt relief from you creditors. Several US airlines has been in and out
of bankruptcy several times. They're still flying. I'm not sure what "bankruptcy" means
on the other side of the pond, though.
The pieces may or may not be worth more than the whole. It may be more
advantageous to clean up their operations and continue forward.
---
Lyman
In article <·················@mindspring.com>,
Lyman S. Taylor <············@mindspring.com> wrote:
(snip)
> At least under US Law, Bankruptcy does not mean "liquidation". It means you get
> temporary debt relief from you creditors. Several US airlines has been in and out
> of bankruptcy several times. They're still flying. I'm not sure what "bankruptcy" means
> on the other side of the pond, though.
(snip)
The last I heard was that they're 'in receivership', which means that
receivers have been officially appointed to keep the business going
while they try to look for a buyer for it. Mind you, plenty of staff
have already vanished elsewhere and it's not quite clear which bits of
Harlequin are going to tempt people, though; there's some scepticism
about the 'interesting languages' side, which may make economic sense
but is sad nonetheless. I'll be interested to see what happens to LCL:
hopefully nothing too bad - there aren't too many well-supported
decent commercial Lisps out there.
-- Mark
Mark Carroll wrote:
>there's some scepticism about the 'interesting languages' side
>[of Harlequin] which may make economic sense
>but is sad nonetheless. I'll be interested to see what happens to LCL:
>hopefully nothing too bad - there aren't too many well-supported
>decent commercial Lisps out there.
My impression as a new user, interested in using Lisp for comercial
projects, is that the lack of compilers is especially felt on Windows. But a
Windows port of CMUCL might more than make up for Harlequin's absence
(assuming that is the outcome of recent events, which needn't be the case.)
Out of curiousity, has anyone estimated how much work this would be?
Jonathan Coupe
> My impression as a new user, interested in using Lisp for comercial
> projects, is that the lack of compilers is especially felt on Windows. But
a
> Windows port of CMUCL might more than make up for Harlequin's absence
> (assuming that is the outcome of recent events, which needn't be the
case.)
> Out of curiousity, has anyone estimated how much work this would be?
My first guess: a lot. OTOH, using some UN*X simulator for Windows such as
Cygnus' gnu-win32 should make things simplier, but indeed it still will be a
huge piece of work.
--
Eugene.
From: Fernando Mato Mira
Subject: CMUCL for Windows (Re: Harlequin File for Bankruptcy)
Date:
Message-ID: <378218C4.37BB516D@iname.com>
Raymond Toy wrote:
> needed to run CMUCL. I took a brief look at running CMUCL natively on
> Windows. I think Windows (and Windows C compilers) have everything
> needed by CMUCL's C runtime, so it would be possible. I think the
> majority of the work would be getting the C code to run.
Are you talking about Alpha NT? Or is there an x86 backend now?
From: Raymond Toy
Subject: Re: CMUCL for Windows (Re: Harlequin File for Bankruptcy)
Date:
Message-ID: <4n673xvklj.fsf@rtp.ericsson.se>
>>>>> "Fernando" == Fernando Mato Mira <········@iname.com> writes:
Fernando> Raymond Toy wrote:
>> needed to run CMUCL. I took a brief look at running CMUCL natively on
>> Windows. I think Windows (and Windows C compilers) have everything
>> needed by CMUCL's C runtime, so it would be possible. I think the
>> majority of the work would be getting the C code to run.
Fernando> Are you talking about Alpha NT? Or is there an x86 backend now?
There has been a x86 backend for several years now. Look at
www.cons.org.
Ray
In article <·················@iname.com>,
Fernando Mato Mira <········@iname.com> writes:
>
>
> Raymond Toy wrote:
>
>> needed to run CMUCL. I took a brief look at running CMUCL natively on
>> Windows. I think Windows (and Windows C compilers) have everything
>> needed by CMUCL's C runtime, so it would be possible. I think the
>> majority of the work would be getting the C code to run.
>
> Are you talking about Alpha NT? Or is there an x86 backend now?
>
There's been an X86 backend for two years or so. Linux and FreeBSD
versions are on www.cons.org. (along with Solaris, HP, and Alphas)
Mike McDonald
·······@mikemac.com
Fernando Mato Mira <········@iname.com> writes:
> Raymond Toy wrote:
>
> > needed to run CMUCL. I took a brief look at running CMUCL natively on
> > Windows. I think Windows (and Windows C compilers) have everything
> > needed by CMUCL's C runtime, so it would be possible. I think the
> > majority of the work would be getting the C code to run.
>
> Are you talking about Alpha NT? Or is there an x86 backend now?
There has been a very successful x86 port for some time now (3-4 years
at the least, IIRC), first targeted to FreeBSD (and thereby runnable
on other BSDs, I'm told) and then also to Linux, for which a very nice
Debian package exists that's maintained by Peter Van Eynde.
Actually, currently the x86 port is ahead of the other ports at least
in the areas of threading (non-native is workable, native threads are
being worked on) and GC (conservative generational garbage collector),
thanks to the work of Douglas T. Crosher.
See http://www.cons.org/cmucl/ for details, and check back often, as
there will probably a major face-lift to this site in the future...
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org> PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
"One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: Fernando Mato Mira
Subject: Re: CMUCL for Windows (Re: Harlequin File for Bankruptcy)
Date:
Message-ID: <378305EB.E149E098@iname.com>
"Pierre R. Mai" wrote:
> Fernando Mato Mira <········@iname.com> writes:
>
> > Raymond Toy wrote:
> >
> > > needed to run CMUCL. I took a brief look at running CMUCL natively on
>
> > Are you talking about Alpha NT? Or is there an x86 backend now?
>
> There has been a very successful x86 port for some time now (3-4 years
This is very heroic. I hope that whoever was able to understand the CMUCL
implementation _and_ port it to x86 also likes writing (interesting)
documentation.
When you read the original implementation docs from CMU, it felt like you
arrived
in the middle of a movie..
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 17:21:26 +0000, Steve Long <·········@isomedia.com>
posted:
>Well, I'm glad I didn't pursue a job there last year.
Well, an experience that teaches you useful things, gets you useful
contacts, and probably provides a decent resume line entry, is not
a truly *bad* thing...
--
I'm sure glad we're having this "How many FTP transfers can dance on
the head of a chargeback packet" conversation now, because when
chargebacks happen, it will surely be too expensive to read these
amazing conversations.
········@hex.net- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/langlisp.html>
So last weekend was a bad weekend to loose my computer, i guess, huh.
(I didn't know)
bummed...
Jon Dyte <········@totient.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
·················@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> http://www.seyboldseminars.com/News/1999/990701.html
>
>
> Jon
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.