From: Bill McAlister
Subject: NT and Linux Implementations of Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <39E87D5E.A85E9506@home.com>
Hi,
Can someone please recommend a good NT implementation of Lisp. I
currently know several languages and am interested in learning Lisp
mostly for fun.
I also will soon have my new Linux box up and running soon and would
appreciate a Linux recommendation as well.
Bilbo
In article <·················@home.com>, Bill McAlister
<········@home.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can someone please recommend a good NT implementation of Lisp. I
> currently know several languages and am interested in learning Lisp
> mostly for fun.
>
> I also will soon have my new Linux box up and running soon and would
> appreciate a Linux recommendation as well.
>
> Bilbo
Actually I believe that CLISP will fit both NT and
linux.
It's located at http://clisp.cons.org/ or
http://clisp.sourceforge.net I believe.
As for NT, you can also possibly get a copy of
Allegro Common Lisp through www.franz.com. It's
a very good lisp, but be warned - the trial version
isn't all that fabulous, and the full version costs
several thousand dollars AFAIK.
CLISP is free as in speech and as in beer.
--
David Allen
http://opop.nols.com/
----------------------------------------
Windows: From the people who brought you EDLIN !
* "David Allen" <········@titan.vcu.edu>
| As for NT, you can also possibly get a copy of Allegro Common Lisp
| through www.franz.com. It's a very good lisp, but be warned - the
| trial version isn't all that fabulous, and the full version costs
| several thousand dollars AFAIK.
If you were interested in helping anyone along, would it be a crime
to give enough information that others might be able to come to a
conclusion of their own instead of having to believe your conclusion
with no clue what it is based on, how _you_ arrived at it, what you
wanted and got and didn't get, or how you rate other things? For
all we know, you're one of those people who think all software
sucks, so "isn't all that fabulous" could be the best thing you have
ever said about any piece of software. There's no telling with only
s aingle data point to speculate from.
The Trial Edition offers more than the Professional Edition does,
but it has a reduced heap size, and the clear intent is to avoid
abuse while allowing reasonable trial use. Abusers are good at
making goodwill seem wasted on the community and they make it much
harder for those who would like try something out on a good faith
basis be able to do so. Therefore, there have been serious changes
in the way the Trial Edition has worked, and with the next release,
the program that Franz Inc has always had wherein you would present
a case for purchasing a license and be rewarded a trial license on a
case-by-case basis (so you could actually try to do _some_ of the
stuff you would purchase a license for) would be extended and made
more automatic. Giving away access to software that otherwise is
the mainstay of your business involves a difficult set of trade-
offs. I'm not sure it makes sense to complain about what you get
for free. More productive is trying that novel approach in this
electronic day and age and _send_them_mail_ and communicate your
needs and desires.
But yeah, the pricing is horrible. To be _honest_, though, it gets
much worse than just the software: The programmers and developers
who are going to use it cost _many_ times what the software costs.
As long as you're into this programming business for its commercial
value (and more and more IT and Internet businesses have come to
their senses and face the need to look at the commercial value of
their operations), you might as well realize sooner rather than
later that a programmer who wastes a couple weeks of company time a
year because of inferior tools costs more than one who gets a
license for Allegro CL and wastes that much less. But, again to be
_really_ honest, since all programmers piss away a lot of time in a
year, the issue is whether we can reclaim some of that time with a
better tool and then the value of that programmer's time increases
in ways that are hard to measure. Good tools can often make as big
a difference as a factor of 5 on some programmers, especially if
they learn to appreciate it and don't try to reinvent it all the
time, which often happens to good programmrs using inferior tools.
However, if _your_ time is free, too, _do_ go for the free tools.
| CLISP is free as in speech and as in beer.
It's also a great toy and much can be done with it, but as with all
toys, don't get too attached to it if you plan to move on to a
production systems. In particular, don't ever time your code in
CLISP -- the timing statistics are so skewed in favor of using only
built-in operators and so skewed in disfavor of writing anything
advanced of your own that CLISP users learn how to optimize their
code by remaining at the primitive, builtin level. I have seen good
programmers piss away months trying to get CLISP to run fast enough
for real use, when they could at least have moved to CMUCL and get
some reasonable compilation, were it not for marrying themselves to
parts of that system, and not even learning to use the -a option to
make their code an order of magnitude more portable among modern
Common Lisp implementations.
#:Erik
--
I agree with everything you say, but I would
attack to death your right to say it.
-- Tom Stoppard
Bill McAlister <········@home.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Can someone please recommend a good NT implementation of Lisp. I
> currently know several languages and am interested in learning Lisp
> mostly for fun.
>
> I also will soon have my new Linux box up and running soon and would
> appreciate a Linux recommendation as well.
IIRC does LispWorks from Xanlys works on a lot of platforms. I've
running it here under Linux, without much problems. You can download a
free version from somwehre below www.xanaly.com
Regards
Friedrich
--
for e-mail reply remove all after .com