From: Roland Herrera
Subject: Free unteroreters for win98 ?
Date:
Message-ID: <8jj1cd$k0t$1@gxsn.com>
Hi group,
Are there any free Lisps for win98 ? Have they got documentation ? or is
it not worth the bother ? Do they do graphics.
What anout Logo and Prolog ; are they better off ? I'd like to start on
one of these languages.....
v.cheeers
Roland Herrera
"Roland Herrera" <······@globalnet.co.uk> writes:
> What anout Logo and Prolog ; are they better off ? I'd like to start on
> one of these languages.....
I love Prolog, but I haven't worked with it in years.
Lisp seems a lot more "practical", though, in terms of interfacing
with other stuff, having libraries available, and building actual
programs. But Prolog is a lot of fun, especially for pure factual
relationships.
I'd say play with both.
--
vsync
http://quadium.net/ - last updated Thu Jun 29 13:01:57 MDT 2000
(cons (cons (car (cons 'c 'r)) (cdr (cons 'a 'o))) ; Orjner
(cons (cons (car (cons 'n 'c)) (cdr (cons nil 's))) nil)))
"Roland Herrera" <······@globalnet.co.uk> writes:
> Are there any free Lisps for win98 ? Have they got documentation ?
> or is it not worth the bother ? Do they do graphics.
You can get Corman Lisp for Windows at http://www.corman.net. The
compiler is free for personal use and inexpensive for commercial use.
Chris.
--
http://www.double.co.nz/cl
In article <············@gxsn.com>, "Roland Herrera"
<······@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi group,
>
> Are there any free Lisps for win98 ? Have they got documentation ? or is
> it not worth the bother ? Do they do graphics.
>
See http://www.lisp.org/ for answers to this FAQ.
--
Rainer Joswig, BU Partner,
ISION Internet AG, Steinh�ft 9, 20459 Hamburg, Germany
Tel: +49 40 3070 2950, Fax: +49 40 3070 2999
Email: ····················@ision.net WWW: http://www.ision.net/
Roland Herrera <······@globalnet.co.uk> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
············@gxsn.com...
> Hi group,
>
> Are there any free Lisps for win98 ? Have they got documentation ? or
is
> it not worth the bother ? Do they do graphics.
There are free Lisps but they all have some limitations. Some of them do not
support GUI interface building, some of them limit the size of heap you can
use, etc.
There is no free implementations of Lisp for Win32 in the sense Python or
Perl are free.
Janos
"Janos Blazi" <······@vipsurf.de> writes:
> There is no free implementations of Lisp for Win32 in the sense
> Python or Perl are free.
What about CLISP? I've used that on NT without problems and that is
free is it not?
Chris.
--
http://www.double.co.nz/cl
Chris Double <·····@double.co.nz> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
··············@double.co.nz...
> "Janos Blazi" <······@vipsurf.de> writes:
>
> > There is no free implementations of Lisp for Win32 in the sense
> > Python or Perl are free.
>
> What about CLISP? I've used that on NT without problems and that is
> free is it not?
Yes it is and I love it. Actually when I use Lisp, Clisp is my choice. The
only problem with Clisp is that it does not offer any GUI building support,
at least not for NT.
A Tk binding for example would be wonderful. Now please understand: If I had
to use Lisp professionally I should buy ACL or LispWorks but my usual
programming problems are so simple that buying one of them would not pay.
Also I need a language for teaching and we could never afford a site
licence.
So I use Python, though it sometimes looks as a toy compared to Lisp. But it
is usually sufficient for my simple problems.
J.B.
> Also I need a language for teaching and we could never afford a site
> licence.
As you are teaching, there may be an alternative with a GUI. It is not
Common lisp, it is Scheme, but there is a very nice version of Scheme,
with a GUI, available for free, and designed especially for teaching:
http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/PLT/packages/drscheme/index.html
While I was looking for a free Common Lisp on Win95/98, I looked at it,
just out of curiosity, after someone recommended it to me. It may not
satisfy your needs, but it may however be worth a look.
Regards
Marie-No�lle Baechler
<······@bluewin.ch> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
·················@bluewin.ch...
>
> > Also I need a language for teaching and we could never afford a site
> > licence.
>
> As you are teaching, there may be an alternative with a GUI. It is not
> Common lisp, it is Scheme, but there is a very nice version of Scheme,
> with a GUI, available for free, and designed especially for teaching:
>
> http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/PLT/packages/drscheme/index.html
>
> While I was looking for a free Common Lisp on Win95/98, I looked at it,
> just out of curiosity, after someone recommended it to me. It may not
> satisfy your needs, but it may however be worth a look.
>
> Regards
>
> Marie-No�lle Baechler
Thx, I know it. (BTW: Is it R5RS? I do not remember.)
I shall use Clisp for my teaching, though. It is a pity it does not have a
Tk binding...
J.B.
> Thx, I know it. (BTW: Is it R5RS? I do not remember.)
It is R4RS and macros are partially hygienic.
> I shall use Clisp for my teaching, though. It is a pity it
> does not have a Tk binding...
Well, TCL/TK has been ported to Windows:
http://www.pconline.com/~erc/tclwin.htm
http://dev.scriptics.com/software/tcltk/download83.html
And there are several CLISP packages that are made with TCL/TK,
including a debugging environnment and PUNIMAX (an older version
of MAXIMA).
http://clisp.sourceforge.net/resources.html
I guess, that with both CLISP sources and a TCL/TK port, it
should be possible to combine both under Windows. It is probably
a big effort too.
Regards
Marie-No�lle Baechler
<······@bluewin.ch> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
·················@bluewin.ch...
>
>
> > Thx, I know it. (BTW: Is it R5RS? I do not remember.)
>
> It is R4RS and macros are partially hygienic.
>
> > I shall use Clisp for my teaching, though. It is a pity it
> > does not have a Tk binding...
>
> Well, TCL/TK has been ported to Windows:
> http://www.pconline.com/~erc/tclwin.htm
> http://dev.scriptics.com/software/tcltk/download83.html
>
> And there are several CLISP packages that are made with TCL/TK,
> including a debugging environnment and PUNIMAX (an older version
> of MAXIMA).
> http://clisp.sourceforge.net/resources.html
>
> I guess, that with both CLISP sources and a TCL/TK port, it
> should be possible to combine both under Windows. It is probably
> a big effort too.
I am sure it could be done but I could not do it. Actually, I think I could
not even create Clisp from the sources, it is probably too Unix oriented, it
could not be compiled with VC++, etc.
But I surmise that once these difficulties ar dealt with it is not a
hopeless task, though probably a lot of work.
J.B.
From: Reini Urban
Subject: Re: Free unteroreters for win98 ?
Date:
Message-ID: <39615a57.141774440@news>
Janos Blazi wrote:
>I am sure it could be done but I could not do it. Actually, I think I could
>not even create Clisp from the sources, it is probably too Unix oriented, it
>could not be compiled with VC++, etc.
>But I surmise that once these difficulties ar dealt with it is not a
>hopeless task, though probably a lot of work.
VC not? It does with almost every single DOS/Windows compiler!
gcc/egcs (cygwin32 and mingw32), msvc, watcom c, borland c
more competing compiler options than every emacs, perl or python ever
had.
what is missing? lcc probably, but this would be a matter of minutes.
read INSTALL and type
dmake, nmake or make <return>
--
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/autocad/news/faq/autolisp.html
······@sbox.tu-graz.ac.at (Reini Urban) wrote in
<··················@news>:
>Janos Blazi wrote:
>>I am sure it could be done but I could not do it. Actually, I think I
>>could not even create Clisp from the sources, it is probably too Unix
>>oriented, it could not be compiled with VC++, etc.
>>But I surmise that once these difficulties ar dealt with it is not a
>>hopeless task, though probably a lot of work.
>
>VC not? It does with almost every single DOS/Windows compiler!
>gcc/egcs (cygwin32 and mingw32), msvc, watcom c, borland c
>more competing compiler options than every emacs, perl or python ever
>had.
>
>what is missing? lcc probably, but this would be a matter of minutes.
>
>read INSTALL and type
>dmake, nmake or make <return>
>
>--
>Reini Urban
>http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/autocad/news/faq/autolisp.html
>
Actually I remember that the latest version of CLISP required some
creativity to get to compile under VC-6. You might want to get a binary if
you are uncomfortable with compiling on this platform
Immanuel
"Janos Blazi" <······@vipsurf.de> writes:
> Now please understand: If I had
> to use Lisp professionally I should buy ACL or LispWorks but my usual
> programming problems are so simple that buying one of them would not
> pay.
Why? Do you think there is something immoral about using open source
products? If it's the best tool for the job (note the 'if'), shouldn't
you use it?
--
·····@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
'You cannot put "The Internet" into the Recycle Bin.'
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Free unteroreters for win98 ?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey37lb2xb0j.fsf@cley.com>
* Simon Brooke wrote:
> Why? Do you think there is something immoral about using open source
> products? If it's the best tool for the job (note the 'if'), shouldn't
> you use it?
For me it would depend on whether I could get good support for it, if
I felt it was likely I would need such. The only reasons I end up
paying for software seem to be that it supports some proprietary
format which I need (any Microsoft product pretty much) or it has
painless support (solaris, commercial Lisps). I guess the third and
fourth reasons would be better performance or doing something that I
can't get done with free software, but neither of these seems to
be an issue in practice (probably solaris/other commercial OS on big
boxes would be in the third category, and I guess microsoft stuff is
in the fourth in a bizarre sense).
All of these are basically hardcore efficiency reasons: I use what's
cheaper, and good commercial software is often cheaper, if you do your
sums right. Not many people do of course, resulting both in rabid
freesoftwareism and the pervasive use of microsoft products.
--tim
Simon Brooke <·····@jasmine.org.uk> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
··············@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> "Janos Blazi" <······@vipsurf.de> writes:
>
> > Now please understand: If I had
> > to use Lisp professionally I should buy ACL or LispWorks but my usual
> > programming problems are so simple that buying one of them would not
> > pay.
>
> Why? Do you think there is something immoral about using open source
> products? If it's the best tool for the job (note the 'if'), shouldn't
> you use it?
Not at all. But free Lisp software does not support CLIM on NT.
J.B.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----