Helenius Ville wrote:
>
> Is there any free LISP compiler/interpreter for windows95>
> (Windows because of GUI)
> I am purely interested in taking a look in the world of LISP...
Somewhat limited trial versions etc:
http://www.corman.net/CormanLisp.html
http://www.franz.com
http://www.xanalys.com
--
In article <············@baker.cc.tut.fi>,
Helenius Ville <········@cc.tut.fi> wrote:
> Is there any free LISP compiler/interpreter for windows95>
> (Windows because of GUI)
> I am purely interested in taking a look in the world of LISP...
My favorite is CLISP running under Emacs. Corman Lisp is another option.
It seems a little less ANSI to me, but you can use it to generate
standalone .exe files.
Corman has a free character-mode version, plus a 30-day trial for the
GUI IDE version; if you decide to buy it, it's not expensive.
CLISP is free. It lacks an IDE, but using it under Emacs more than makes
up for the lack. I also like being able to run the same system under
Windoze and Unix.
Another thing you can do if you're stuck with a system without an IDE,
is to have your favorite code editor and the Lisp system open as 2
windows. Make your changes in the editor, then "load" the file in the
Lisp system to test it, go back to the editor, etc.
It's not hard at all to use CLISP to develop/debug then use Corman as a
compiler. There are a few small differences, but they aren't hard to
find.
One of the interesting things i've seen is that Lisp code compiled to
machine language (.exe) is not necesssarily a lot faster than CLISP
compiled code.
CLISP, Corman and other free Lisps are listed here:
http://www.alu.org/table/systems.htm#pcfree
There is a lot of other good stuff in the ALU site too.
I'm always amazed by the generosity of the people who share such great
software for free!
Good luck with Lisp.
One more plug: i'm really enjoying Paul Graham's book: "ANSI Common
Lisp". If i had found it earlier, it might have cut an year or so off my
learning cycle.
glauber
--
Glauber Ribeiro
··········@my-deja.com http://www.myvehiclehistoryreport.com
"Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:55:17 +0200 , The Glauber
<··········@my-deja.com> wrote:
>One of the interesting things i've seen is that Lisp code compiled to
>machine language (.exe) is not necesssarily a lot faster than CLISP
>compiled code.
Actually, CLISP is *significantly* faster for at least certain types
of numeric work (a bignum factorial-type function was amazingly faster
when I did a basic test, once...)
The big problem with CLISP on Windows is that its FFI is non-existent
there. Corman lisp has a very nice (but very undocumented!) FFI and
COM interface. If CLISP had something like this, I'd be delighted.
(To be honest, I find that languages without a FFI and COM access on
Windows are annoyingly limited for a lot of uses - the "one language
fits all" approach tends not to work well any more - if ever...)
Paul.
In article <····························@4ax.com>, Paul Moore
<··········@uk.origin-it.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:55:17 +0200 , The Glauber
> <··········@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >One of the interesting things i've seen is that Lisp code compiled to
> >machine language (.exe) is not necesssarily a lot faster than CLISP
> >compiled code.
If you have an .exe file it is not really said that
the Lisp code is compiled to machine code.
> Actually, CLISP is *significantly* faster for at least certain types
> of numeric work (a bignum factorial-type function was amazingly faster
> when I did a basic test, once...)
Generally CLISP is quite a lot slower for code that
doesn't use the built-in functions exclusively.
There is a sharp performance hit when you start
coding Lisp functions in Lisp (as opposed to use
or code the Lisp functions in C). This is an
effect of the implementation strategy of CLisp.
This still means that it is "fast enough" to do
many interesting things with it (-> YahooStore). :-)
> The big problem with CLISP on Windows is that its FFI is non-existent
> there. Corman lisp has a very nice (but very undocumented!) FFI and
> COM interface. If CLISP had something like this, I'd be delighted.
Sounds like an area for a contribution to CLISP.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:08:44 +0200 , Rainer Joswig
<······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote:
>In article <····························@4ax.com>, Paul Moore
><··········@uk.origin-it.com> wrote:
>> The big problem with CLISP on Windows is that its FFI is non-existent
>> there. Corman lisp has a very nice (but very undocumented!) FFI and
>> COM interface. If CLISP had something like this, I'd be delighted.
>
>Sounds like an area for a contribution to CLISP.
Agreed. I even had a look at doing it once. The problem is that (a)
the idiosyncratic form of the sources made it very hard for me to
understand the code, (b) my lack of any German skills meant that I
couldn't follow much of the comments, (c) the fact that I don't know
Lisp very well means that I can't judge the best form for such an
interface, and (d) as with most things, I didn't have the time (or
sufficient need to make the time available...)
I would love it if someone else did this - I'd really like to learn
Common Lisp, mainly for interest, but also with the intention of
actually using it for some work locally. But the work I'd be doing is
very COM-based (JScript, ADO, Windows Scripting Host) and CLISP just
hasn't got the capabilities I need.
Sadly (from my point of view) few developers of "interesting" (ie,
anything other than basic procedural) languages seem to have much
interest in supporting Windows to this level. I can understand why, I
just wish it wasn't so...
Paul.
Paul Moore wrote:
>Agreed. I even had a look at doing it once. The problem is that (a)
>the idiosyncratic form of the sources made it very hard for me to
>understand the code, (b) my lack of any German skills meant that I
>couldn't follow much of the comments,
even if you do understand german it is hard.
the problem with the ffi is the sheer mess of cpu's and compilers to
support. the clisp ffi approach is the most mature, better than the SGI
ffi lib, but also hardest to understand.
>(c) the fact that I don't know
>Lisp very well means that I can't judge the best form for such an
>interface, and (d) as with most things, I didn't have the time (or
>sufficient need to make the time available...)
>
>I would love it if someone else did this - I'd really like to learn
>Common Lisp, mainly for interest, but also with the intention of
>actually using it for some work locally. But the work I'd be doing is
>very COM-based (JScript, ADO, Windows Scripting Host) and CLISP just
>hasn't got the capabilities I need.
>
>Sadly (from my point of view) few developers of "interesting" (ie,
>anything other than basic procedural) languages seem to have much
>interest in supporting Windows to this level. I can understand why, I
>just wish it wasn't so...
I had a deep look at the clisp ffi, esp. the ffi library and the newer
amiga one, but decided then not to go with this.
corman seems to be much better and more readable. esp. the inline
assembler makes it easy to extend it, without bothering various C
compilers and platforms as with clisp.
corman needs only to support one platform, one compiler. very very
simple.
both have no fullblown, easy to use GUI samples nor apps yet.
IDispatch (your interest) is also a mess. Wonder if SOAP-only support
(MS .net) wouldn't be much easier.
--
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/autocad/news/faq/autolisp.html
In article <··················@judy>,
······@sbox.tu-graz.ac.at wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
> >Agreed. I even had a look at doing it once. The problem is that (a)
> >the idiosyncratic form of the sources made it very hard for me to
> >understand the code, (b) my lack of any German skills meant that I
> >couldn't follow much of the comments,
>
> even if you do understand german it is hard.
The source code for CLISP is something that makes grown men cry. It's not
written in straight C, but something that looks like lisp syntax done in the
C preprocessor. It's very clever code, but you have to learn this
metalanguage to understand what it's doing.
It broke IBM's ANSI-C compiler on RS6000 (but it does work with gcc on the
same platform).
The foreign function interface seems to be much simpler to deal with. The
documentation says that it's implemented in Unix and Win32.
--
Glauber Ribeiro
··········@my-deja.com http://www.myvehiclehistoryreport.com
"Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
In article <····························@4ax.com>, Paul Moore
<··········@uk.origin-it.com> wrote:
> Sadly (from my point of view) few developers of "interesting" (ie,
> anything other than basic procedural) languages seem to have much
> interest in supporting Windows to this level. I can understand why, I
> just wish it wasn't so...
Would Xanalys' LispWorks fit the bill (minus the costs)?
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
Paul Moore <··········@uk.origin-it.com> writes:
> Sadly (from my point of view) few developers of "interesting" (ie,
> anything other than basic procedural) languages seem to have much
> interest in supporting Windows to this level. I can understand why,
> I just wish it wasn't so...
Corman Lisp doesn't do to bad from this point of view. You can do most
anything that can be done in Windows with it.
Another 'interesting' language, Dylan, has a windows implementation
that supports COM, FFI, etc. So it is an example of good support for
Windows features in a non mainstream language.
Chris.
--
http://www.double.co.nz/cl
http://www.double.co.nz/dylan
[To reply replace "Aaron.Sloman.XX" with "A.Sloman"]
Helenius Ville <········@cc.tut.fi> writes:
> Is there any free LISP compiler/interpreter for windows95>
> (Windows because of GUI)
> I am purely interested in taking a look in the world of LISP...
If it suits your needs, Poplog is completely free, with all source
code freely available, and includes an incremental compiler for
common lisp (as well as Pop-11, Prolog and ML).
The windows/NT version does not have any graphics, since the
graphical tools use the X window system, on linux/unix/solaris.
More information at
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/freepoplog.html
Aaron
Aaron Sloman, ( http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/ )
School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
EMAIL A.Sloman AT cs.bham.ac.uk (········@please !)
PAPERS: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/cogaff/
FREE TOOLS: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/freepoplog.html