From: Mario Lang
Subject: CMUCL or CLISP?
Date: 
Message-ID: <871yxpaqvu.fsf@home.delysid.org>
Hi.

I am just getting started with CL. Mainly, I want to use CLM and CM
to explore new ways of composing music.

I wanted to ask which of the above (free?) CL interpreters/compilers
is more mature and/or better compatible with CLM and CM?

Or am I going to raise a kind of "distribution-war"?

-- 
CYa,
   Mario <·····@delysid.org>
Homepage(s): http://delysid.org | http://piss.at/

"Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..."
		-- Professor in the UCB physics department
From: Rainer Joswig
Subject: Re: CMUCL or CLISP?
Date: 
Message-ID: <joswig-25A077.14031410102000@news.is-europe.net>
In article <··············@home.delysid.org>, Mario Lang 
<·····@home.delysid.org> wrote:

> Hi.
> 
> I am just getting started with CL. Mainly, I want to use CLM and CM
> to explore new ways of composing music.
> 
> I wanted to ask which of the above (free?) CL interpreters/compilers
> is more mature and/or better compatible with CLM and CM?

Both are actively maintained.

If you want to generate sounds with CLM without using
an external C compiler (CLM can generate C code),
CMUCL should be *much* faster than CLISP.

(for those who don't know CLM, it is at:
http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/CCRMA/Software/clm/clm.html ).

-- 
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
From: ···@io.com
Subject: Re: CMUCL or CLISP?
Date: 
Message-ID: <PB6F5.22823$UP5.369344@news6.giganews.com>
Mario Lang <·····@home.delysid.org> wrote:
> Hi.

> I am just getting started with CL. Mainly, I want to use CLM and CM
> to explore new ways of composing music.

> I wanted to ask which of the above (free?) CL interpreters/compilers
> is more mature and/or better compatible with CLM and CM?

according to 

http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/CCRMA/Software/clm/clm.html

choices for CLM are limited by platform. linux is clisp only.  (i am
avoiding CM because i am done with MIDI, and can already write progs to
generate csound code).  i am going the route of linuxppc, clisp, and CLM,
at least in the near future, basically for the same reasons.

IOW ill have more to comment soon (:

-j
--
I don't care how sick you say its gonna get
my big ass bubble has not busted yet
because i feel, i feel fine.  i feel fine.
                   BV3G
From: Christophe Rhodes
Subject: Re: CMUCL or CLISP?
Date: 
Message-ID: <sqd7h6bjfx.fsf@lambda.jesus.cam.ac.uk>
···@io.com writes:

> Mario Lang <·····@home.delysid.org> wrote:
> > Hi.
> 
> > I am just getting started with CL. Mainly, I want to use CLM and CM
> > to explore new ways of composing music.
> 
> > I wanted to ask which of the above (free?) CL interpreters/compilers
> > is more mature and/or better compatible with CLM and CM?
> 
> according to 
> 
> http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/CCRMA/Software/clm/clm.html
> 
> choices for CLM are limited by platform. linux is clisp only.  (i am
> avoiding CM because i am done with MIDI, and can already write progs to
> generate csound code).  i am going the route of linuxppc, clisp, and CLM,
> at least in the near future, basically for the same reasons.
> 
> IOW ill have more to comment soon (:

Well, I've certainly used CLM with cmucl with no modifications. I
suppose that web page is out of date...

Christophe
-- 
Jesus College, Cambridge, CB5 8BL                           +44 1223 524 842
(FORMAT T "(·@{~w ········@{~w~^ ~})" 'FORMAT T "(·@{~w ········@{~w~^ ~})")
From: Bill Schottstaedt
Subject: Re: CMUCL or CLISP?
Date: 
Message-ID: <8s4d0p$rve$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
> Well, I've certainly used CLM with cmucl with no modifications. I
> suppose that web page is out of date...

By several years!  I completely forgot about it -- it's more
current now.
comp.lang.lisp / 2000 / oct