I've just begun learning lisp and I'm really starting to like it...So
naturally I've been looking into different implementations in order to find
a good (free) environment to play with.
I've been using CLISP for working through most of the examples in my book
(Horn, and Winston's "Lisp" _2nd edition_) but recently I saw someone
mention that GCL had some really unique abilities that I'd like to
experiment with....but I'm having trouble getting information on GNU Common
Lisp. Is the GCL project dead? Are there any web sites with current
information? Is it even worth pursuing?
-Drew
"Andrew McDowell" <·············@msfc.nasa.gov> writes:
> I've just begun learning lisp and I'm really starting to like it...So
> naturally I've been looking into different implementations in order to find
> a good (free) environment to play with.
>
> I've been using CLISP for working through most of the examples in my book
> (Horn, and Winston's "Lisp" _2nd edition_) but recently I saw someone
> mention that GCL had some really unique abilities that I'd like to
> experiment with....
what abilities are you looking for?
> but I'm having trouble getting information on GNU Common
> Lisp. Is the GCL project dead?
maybe zombie or ghoul status. no one here seems to speak very highly
of GCL nor does anyone seem to use it regularly.
> Are there any web sites with current
> information?
try <URL:http://www.alu.org/>
> Is it even worth pursuing?
i would say not. don't bother to pursue GCL.
there are many other *good* common-lisps out there. what platforms
are you using? ms-windows, unix, other?
franz offers a free trial version of their excellent allegro common
lisp. it's available for ms-windows and varios flavors of unix
(including linux).
cmucl is a reasonable, fast, full compile to native code, public
domain unix common-lisp.
in windows you have corman lisp. its price is certainly reasonable.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[········@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: GCL? [- from a lisp newbie]
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3bt50puyo.fsf@cley.com>
* Johan Kullstam wrote:
> maybe zombie or ghoul status. no one here seems to speak very highly
> of GCL nor does anyone seem to use it regularly.
That's not true. At least one c.l.l reader uses it a lot. I'll let
him speak for himself if he wants to...
>> Are there any web sites with current
>> information?
> try <URL:http://www.alu.org/>
>> Is it even worth pursuing?
> i would say not. don't bother to pursue GCL.
I think it's still interesting for some stuff. *Trivial* standalone
executable generation is one.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Johan Kullstam wrote:
> > maybe zombie or ghoul status. no one here seems to speak very highly
> > of GCL nor does anyone seem to use it regularly.
>
> That's not true. At least one c.l.l reader uses it a lot. I'll let
> him speak for himself if he wants to...
i am sorry if i offended anyone by this comment.
i am still interested to know what capabilities the original poster
was after. maybe it is the small stand-alone executable.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[········@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
Johan Kullstam <········@ne.mediaone.net> wrote in message
···················@sophia.axel.nom...
> i am still interested to know what capabilities the original poster
> was after. maybe it is the small stand-alone executable.
Well, there were three big reasons for my interested originally:
1)Stand-alone executable generation (though I think Franz and LispWorks do
this don't they?)
2)It's a GNU project....and I know it may be considered 'hoaky' but the
"GNU" stamp of approval means alot to me.
3)I'm primarily working on Linux, but I do have to bounce over into Windows
on many occasions...so I would like it available in both environments.
I am also looking for a way to contribute back to the free software
community, and was thinking of trying to help organize the project's
web-appearance...and possibly (when I feel comfortable) trying to help with
the code....I _do_ have a graduate thesis coming up soon *grin*.
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: GCL? [- from a lisp newbie]
Date:
Message-ID: <u4sasdkyc.fsf@ksp.com>
>>>> In message <············@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>
>>>> On the subject of "Re: GCL? [- from a lisp newbie]"
>>>> Sent on 29 Feb 2000 14:21:42 GMT
>>>> Honorable "Andrew McDowell" <·············@msfc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>
>> 2)It's a GNU project....
not it is not. anyone can slap "GNU" on a free (libre) project. I
don't think FSF would object.
GCL is covered by the LGPL - this might have been the original reason
for using GNU in the name.
(CLISP is GPLed, but you can distribute commercial applications based on it).
I don't think that any CL project can ever hope to be an official GNU
project because RMS seems to dislike CL.
>> and I know it may be considered 'hoaky' but the
>> "GNU" stamp of approval means alot to me.
I understand you :-)
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds)
Micros**t is not the answer. Micros**t is a question, and the answer is Linux,
(http://www.linux.org) the choice of the GNU (http://www.gnu.org) generation.
(lisp programmers do it better)
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> I don't think that any CL project can ever hope to be an official GNU
> project because RMS seems to dislike CL.
"... portable X window system as well. After this we will add a portable
Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other
things, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually,
everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more."
- GNU Manifesto, rms, Copyright (C) 1985
- I hope this excerpt is short enough to
be "fair use"
He doesn't say much about it these days, granted. Does anyone know
why his position changed?
(Or indeed, if his position changed)
-dan
Daniel Barlow wrote:
>
> Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> > I don't think that any CL project can ever hope to be an official GNU
> > project because RMS seems to dislike CL.
>
> "... portable X window system as well. After this we will add a portable
> Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other
> things, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually,
> everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more."
>
> - GNU Manifesto, rms, Copyright (C) 1985
> - I hope this excerpt is short enough to
> be "fair use"
>
> He doesn't say much about it these days, granted. Does anyone know
> why his position changed?
>
> (Or indeed, if his position changed)
Maybe only one word has changed. Replace "Common Lisp" to "Emacs LISP"
and you have an Empire game, a spreadsheat, and hundreds of other
things, plus on-line documentation...
I think there was no time to reimplement EMACS from scratch again in CL
and porting EMACS to other platforms was the easy way.
Bye,
Joe
--
Johannes Beck beck informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Daniel Barlow would say:
>Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
>> I don't think that any CL project can ever hope to be an official GNU
>> project because RMS seems to dislike CL.
>
>"... portable X window system as well. After this we will add a portable
> Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other
> things, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually,
> everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more."
>
> - GNU Manifesto, rms, Copyright (C) 1985
> - I hope this excerpt is short enough to
> be "fair use"
>
>He doesn't say much about it these days, granted. Does anyone know
>why his position changed?
>
>(Or indeed, if his position changed)
I'm not sure precisely *why* the position changed, but the "official
opinion" seems to have been to move to Guile as the "Lisp-of-choice."
Some people with "agendas" may suggest nefarious intent; I'm inclined
to discount such.
I think it may be a mistake that they moved to Guile; it's one of the
slowest Scheme implementations around, and over the years, they've had
to build up tools that are gradually turning it into Common Lisp, but
without the merit of compiling to machine code, thus meaning it's
getting pretty bloated (perhaps to become *bigger* than CL), but
without manifest aspects of superiority.
Part of what happens is that people hack on things they feel like
hacking on; that hasn't included GCL, to any great extent, and thus
GCL hasn't improved much.
--
Just be thankful MICROS~1 isn't a manufacturer of pharmaceuticals.
········@ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lisp.html>
Johan Kullstam wrote:
> no one here seems to speak very highly
> of GCL nor does anyone seem to use it regularly.
Someone's using it, and it has an unique set of features:
http://x23.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=560580532&search=thread&CONTEXT=951836869.2107244574&HIT_CONTEXT=951836821.2107703296&HIT_NUM=3&hitnum=19
Robert
On 28 Feb 2000 19:27:45 GMT, Andrew McDowell
<·············@msfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>I've just begun learning lisp and I'm really starting to like it...So
>naturally I've been looking into different implementations in order to find
>a good (free) environment to play with.
[snip]
>experiment with....but I'm having trouble getting information on GNU Common
>Lisp. Is the GCL project dead? Are there any web sites with current
>information? Is it even worth pursuing?
>
For recent versions have a look at:
ftp://ftp.ma.utexas.edu/pub/gcl/
Marc
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
email: marc dot hoffmann at users dot whh dot wau dot nl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------