In article <·····················@news1.teleport.com>,
"David B. Lamkins" <········@teleport.com> wrote:
> In article <·······················@apm6-131.realtime.net> ,
> ······@bridgetrix.com (Neil Cohen) wrote:
>
> > Please recommend a Lisp for the PC. Lisp code will be interfaced with
> > C++ code, and the result used to produce a stand-alone executable sold to
> > consumers. There are two programs. The first is very small (perhaps 10
> > or 20 pages). Would it be simpler to just have it translated to C? The
> > C++ executable is about a meg. The main considerations here are:
> > i. Ease of interfacing with C++.
> > ii. Size of executable. Right now, it's about a meg.
> > iii. Cost.
> >
> > The second program is much larger. Here, efficiency is also important.
> >
> > The development environment is irrelevant in either case. That's done on
> > a Mac.
>
> Perhaps not. Unless you have a simple interface to the C++ program, plan on
> spending some time debugging your FFI. Not to mention writing it. (MCL's
> FFI is unlikely to port directly to either PC product.)
The C++ (more precisely, Visual C++) program will do all the file interface,
with very limited exceptions.
>
> And how about a user interface? Where will that be developed?
The Visual C++ program does that.
>
> >
> > A year or so ago, the newsgroup seemed to prefer Harlequin, since it
> > wasn't much inferior to Allegro and cost much less. There were some
> > recent postings about cut backs in Lisp at Harlequin. How do these affect
> > the choice?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Neil Cohen