Hi,
I'm going to start programming Lisp under Windows 2000, I've been in ALU and I was searching for compilers and somethings like that.
Is there any IDE around? What's the most common windows utilities used around?
Best regards,
--
Paulo J. Matos aka PDestroy
http://www.pdestroy.net
ICQ UIN - 361853
--
The weirder you're going to behave, the more normal you should look. It works in reverse, too. When I see a kid with three or four rings in his nose, I know there is absolutely nothing extraordinary about that person.
- O'Rourke, P. J.
> Paulo J. Matos aka PDestroy <········@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
·················@venus.telepac.pt...
> Hi,
> I'm going to start programming Lisp under Windows 2000, I've been in ALU
and I was searching for compilers and somethings like that.
> Is there any IDE around? What's the most common windows utilities used
around?
Hi Paulo,
I've been through exactly the same thing myself. I posted a rather long
commentary
yesterday, subject "LispWorks - comments & questions (long-ish)" which may
be of
interest. I was testing on Win98 not 2000, but hopefully that won't break
anything.
I found 3 worthy contenders: LispWorks (Personal Edition), Allegro Common
Lisp
and Corman Lisp.
LispWorks can be found at
www.xanalys.com/software_tools/downloads/index.html
Allegro CL can be found at
www.franz.com/downloads/index.php3
Corman Lisp can be found at
www.corman.net/CormanLisp
There's a large degree of subjective opinion in deciding which you prefer.
Allegro is
very expensive to buy I hear (someone mentioned a price to me of $1,750 for
personal
use! I have no idea if this is correct so you must check this with Franz. I
don't want
to accidentally spread mis-information). To play with the trial edition you
get a 1 month
license key from their web site. The rules say you can extend this each
month, up to a
total of 6 months, but after that you have some serious money to pay if you
want to
keep using it.
LispWorks Personal Edition is free but it has some restrictions. The one
that causes me
trouble is the restriction on heap size. To overcome this you need to buy
the Professional
Edition. The price for this is posted on their website, it's $799.
Corman Lisp is the cheapest. The compiler itself is free. The download
includes a 30 day
trial license for their fairly basic IDE (their own release notes
acknowledge it is quite
basic). After 30 days the IDE dies, but you can still keep using the
compiler. The compiler
registers itself as a COM object so you could write your own IDE if you felt
brave. To
register and keep using the Corman IDE costs $200. (By the way, for compiler
you can
also read interpreter. Corman Lisp has no interpreter so the top level loop
first compiles
each input and then executes the code to return the value.)
In my opinion, the above are listed in descending order of sophistication of
IDE, i.e.
Allegro (just) beats LispWorks and Corman trails some way behind (note that
this is
to some degree subjective). They're all free for at least 30 days so try
them and post up
your impressions, I for one would be interested to hear.
Personally my pick is LispWorks. It's in the middle as far as price is
concerned, the
IDE is very close to Allegro (in my opinion), and I also far prefered a few
details of
the way they had chosen to integrate it with windows (see my previous post
that I
refered to above for details).
Download them, play with them, let us know what you think. Have fun, and
good luck,
Julian.
[ Remove numbers to form valid email reply address ]
From: Paulo J. Matos aka PDestroy
Subject: Re: Lisp Utilities under Windows
Date:
Message-ID: <942ess$ne8$1@venus.telepac.pt>
Hi Julian,
thx.
Well, sinceresly I'm not interested to pay for one IDE, so I might think from your post that there's no free IDE around like lcc-32 for C for example. Well, then I'll have to just get a good free compiler and debugger. Do you know any (free)?
best regards,
--
Paulo J. Matos aka PDestroy
http://www.pdestroy.net
ICQ UIN - 361853
--
The weirder you're going to behave, the more normal you should look. It works in reverse, too. When I see a kid with three or four rings in his nose, I know there is absolutely nothing extraordinary about that person.
- O'Rourke, P. J.
"Julian" <······@123lomberg456.net> wrote in message ·················@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Paulo J. Matos aka PDestroy <········@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
> ·················@venus.telepac.pt...
> > Hi,
> > I'm going to start programming Lisp under Windows 2000, I've been in ALU
> and I was searching for compilers and somethings like that.
> > Is there any IDE around? What's the most common windows utilities used
> around?
>
> Hi Paulo,
>
> I've been through exactly the same thing myself. I posted a rather long
> commentary
> yesterday, subject "LispWorks - comments & questions (long-ish)" which may
> be of
> interest. I was testing on Win98 not 2000, but hopefully that won't break
> anything.
> I found 3 worthy contenders: LispWorks (Personal Edition), Allegro Common
> Lisp
> and Corman Lisp.
>
> LispWorks can be found at
> www.xanalys.com/software_tools/downloads/index.html
>
> Allegro CL can be found at
> www.franz.com/downloads/index.php3
>
> Corman Lisp can be found at
> www.corman.net/CormanLisp
>
> There's a large degree of subjective opinion in deciding which you prefer.
> Allegro is
> very expensive to buy I hear (someone mentioned a price to me of $1,750 for
> personal
> use! I have no idea if this is correct so you must check this with Franz. I
> don't want
> to accidentally spread mis-information). To play with the trial edition you
> get a 1 month
> license key from their web site. The rules say you can extend this each
> month, up to a
> total of 6 months, but after that you have some serious money to pay if you
> want to
> keep using it.
>
> LispWorks Personal Edition is free but it has some restrictions. The one
> that causes me
> trouble is the restriction on heap size. To overcome this you need to buy
> the Professional
> Edition. The price for this is posted on their website, it's $799.
>
> Corman Lisp is the cheapest. The compiler itself is free. The download
> includes a 30 day
> trial license for their fairly basic IDE (their own release notes
> acknowledge it is quite
> basic). After 30 days the IDE dies, but you can still keep using the
> compiler. The compiler
> registers itself as a COM object so you could write your own IDE if you felt
> brave. To
> register and keep using the Corman IDE costs $200. (By the way, for compiler
> you can
> also read interpreter. Corman Lisp has no interpreter so the top level loop
> first compiles
> each input and then executes the code to return the value.)
>
> In my opinion, the above are listed in descending order of sophistication of
> IDE, i.e.
> Allegro (just) beats LispWorks and Corman trails some way behind (note that
> this is
> to some degree subjective). They're all free for at least 30 days so try
> them and post up
> your impressions, I for one would be interested to hear.
>
> Personally my pick is LispWorks. It's in the middle as far as price is
> concerned, the
> IDE is very close to Allegro (in my opinion), and I also far prefered a few
> details of
> the way they had chosen to integrate it with windows (see my previous post
> that I
> refered to above for details).
>
> Download them, play with them, let us know what you think. Have fun, and
> good luck,
>
> Julian.
> [ Remove numbers to form valid email reply address ]
>
>
Paulo J. Matos aka PDestroy <········@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
·················@venus.telepac.pt...
>Hi Julian,
>thx.
>Well, sinceresly I'm not interested to pay for one IDE, so I might think
from your post that >there's no free IDE around like lcc-32 for C for
example. Well, then I'll have to just get a good free compiler and debugger.
Do you know any (free)?
Hi Paulo,
Slow response - sorry!
I don't claim to be an expert. I'm pretty new to this group and just happen
to be a few
weeks in front of you as far as trying to find a Lisp implementation that I
like, but here
are a few comments anyway....
It's not true to say there are no free Lisp implementations with IDE for
Windows, it
depends what you want. If you want free, then I see 2 alternatives that may
work for
you:
1) Glauber Ribeiro has posted a response to you recommending Emacs and
CLISP:
I haven't tried it myself but it's another option I didn't list.
2) LispWorks Personal Edition is free as long as you can live with the
limitations. The
only one I find troublesome is the limit on heap size, but that may not
worry you - it
depends how large your applications will be. I can't define the limit
for you I'm afraid
because the application that I was running where I hit the limit was
very big so I don't
personally feel that it was unreasonable for LispWorks Personal Edition
to bomb
out on this one. I've certainly loaded smaller apps (1,000 lines of
source code) with
no problems.
Personally, I'd recommend downloading LispWorks Personal Edition and use
that. If
you never get troubled by the limitation on the heap size then you've found
your
solution. If you hit the limit then you need to find another solution, but
in the meantime
you will have gained some valuable experience of Common Lisp on small to
medium
size applications,
- Julian.
Julian wrote:
> Personally, I'd recommend downloading LispWorks Personal Edition and use
> that. If
> you never get troubled by the limitation on the heap size then you've
> found your
> solution. If you hit the limit then you need to find another solution, but
> in the meantime
> you will have gained some valuable experience of Common Lisp on small to
> medium
> size applications,
The funny part is that this heap-limitation enforces someone to write more
space-efficient code - as I and others realized while using LispWorks by
solving the TSP with "simulated annealing".
Regards,
Jochen
--
http://www.dataheaven.de
"Julian" <······@123lomberg456.net> writes:
> There's a large degree of subjective opinion in deciding which you
> prefer. Allegro is very expensive to buy I hear (someone mentioned a
> price to me of $1,750 for personal use! I have no idea if this is
> correct so you must check this with Franz. I don't want to
> accidentally spread mis-information). To play with the trial edition
> you get a 1 month license key from their web site. The rules say you
> can extend this each month, up to a total of 6 months, but after that
> you have some serious money to pay if you want to keep using it.
This is certainly not true (at least the latter part). The first part,
about ACL being expensive, is definitely true, of course, as anyone
who's ever spoken to a Franz sales rep would know.
As for renewing the 30-day license. That's nonsense. They never
renewed mine, despite the fact that I answered their email surveys, have
reported bugs and suggestions to their company, etc.
If they deal with individuals differently at Franz with respect to the
trial period, then you can probably get more time than I got. I just
barely got enough to notice that their LOOP implementation seems
slightly broken. I think this failed:
(loop repeat 10 do (print "hello") finally return 0)
Where it says in the HyperSpec:
http://www.xanalys.com/software_tools/reference/HyperSpec/Body/sec_6-1-5.html
> The return construct takes one form. Any values returned by the form
> are immediately returned by the loop form. It is equivalent to the
> clause do (return-from block-name value), where block-name is the name
> specified in a named clause, or nil if there is no named clause.
dave
David Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> I just
> barely got enough to notice that their LOOP implementation seems
> slightly broken. I think this failed:
>
> (loop repeat 10 do (print "hello") finally return 0)
>
> Where it says in the HyperSpec:
>
> http://www.xanalys.com/software_tools/reference/HyperSpec/Body/sec_6-1-5.html
>
> > The return construct takes one form. Any values returned by the form
> > are immediately returned by the loop form. It is equivalent to the
> > clause do (return-from block-name value), where block-name is the name
> > specified in a named clause, or nil if there is no named clause.
I think it is supposed to fail. If you look at the syntax diagram of
LOOP, finally is followed by one or more compound-forms. In compound
forms LOOP keywords are not recognized like they are in
selectable-clause or some of the other productions.
You should probably use (return 0) and use the fact that LOOP without
a named clause establishes a block NIL.
Weirdly enough, LispWorks accepts your syntax, which is thus a bug.
--
Lieven Marchand <···@village.uunet.be>
Gla�r ok reifr skyli gumna hverr, unz sinn b��r bana.
Lieven Marchand <···@village.uunet.be> writes:
> I think it is supposed to fail. If you look at the syntax diagram of
> LOOP, finally is followed by one or more compound-forms. In compound
> forms LOOP keywords are not recognized like they are in
> selectable-clause or some of the other productions.
>
> You should probably use (return 0) and use the fact that LOOP without
> a named clause establishes a block NIL.
>
> Weirdly enough, LispWorks accepts your syntax, which is thus a bug.
Yeah. that is strange. I guess I didn't completely read the CLHS, and
since what I tended to write worked in Emacs (require 'cl) and LW, and
I'm pretty sure one other implementation, I figured that it was an ACL
bug. My bad, I guess.
dave
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Lisp Utilities under Windows
Date:
Message-ID: <ey38zo7cum8.fsf@cley.com>
* David Bakhash wrote:
> (loop repeat 10 do (print "hello") finally return 0)
> Where it says in the HyperSpec:
> http://www.xanalys.com/software_tools/reference/HyperSpec/Body/sec_6-1-5.html
>> The return construct takes one form. Any values returned by the form
>> are immediately returned by the loop form. It is equivalent to the
>> clause do (return-from block-name value), where block-name is the name
>> specified in a named clause, or nil if there is no named clause.
However, it also says that finally takes compound-forms, not a clause,
so your example is trivially illegal -- you can't say
(loop ... finally return 0)
you have to say
(loop ... finally (return 0))
The place where you can use the return clause is somewhere where a
clause is expects, such as:
(loop
...
if (consp x)
return 0
...)
or even, I guess:
(loop return 0)
--tim
David Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
····················@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.mit.edu...
> "Julian" <······@123lomberg456.net> writes:
>
> > There's a large degree of subjective opinion in deciding which you
> > prefer. Allegro is very expensive to buy I hear (someone mentioned a
> > price to me of $1,750 for personal use! I have no idea if this is
> > correct so you must check this with Franz. I don't want to
> > accidentally spread mis-information). To play with the trial edition
> > you get a 1 month license key from their web site. The rules say you
> > can extend this each month, up to a total of 6 months, but after that
> > you have some serious money to pay if you want to keep using it.
>
> This is certainly not true (at least the latter part). The first part,
> about ACL being expensive, is definitely true, of course, as anyone
> who's ever spoken to a Franz sales rep would know.
>
> As for renewing the 30-day license. That's nonsense. They never
> renewed mine, despite the fact that I answered their email surveys, have
> reported bugs and suggestions to their company, etc.
Oh! I was just quoting the policy they have posted up on their web site
(re renewal of the trial for up to 6 months). Go to:
http://www.franz.com/downloads/index.php3#acl and look at the last
bullet point under limitations. It's interesting to hear that maybe they
don't
actually follow these rules (or at least didn't in your case). Thanks for
the
info,
Julian.
"Julian" <······@123lomberg456.net> writes:
> Oh! I was just quoting the policy they have posted up on their web
> site (re renewal of the trial for up to 6 months). Go to:
> http://www.franz.com/downloads/index.php3#acl and look at the last
> bullet point under limitations. It's interesting to hear that maybe
> they don't actually follow these rules (or at least didn't in your
> case). Thanks for the info,
I'd actually never read the policy. It just felt a bit unfair, because
I express my views openly, and only want to help the community, and if I
think something is a problem, I'll say something (e.g. here, regarding
Franz), and some people might go one way or another (which is not the
point -- the point is to inform and to correct). But I never dreamed
that I'd be treated differently for this, i.e. from the perspective of a
free trial policy. I'm still just your typical lisp hacker that wants
to play with different implementations and compare them, and stuff like
that.
dave
David Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> I'd actually never read the policy. It just felt a bit unfair, because
> I express my views openly, and only want to help the community, and if I
> think something is a problem, I'll say something (e.g. here, regarding
> Franz), and some people might go one way or another (which is not the
> point -- the point is to inform and to correct). But I never dreamed
> that I'd be treated differently for this, i.e. from the perspective of a
> free trial policy. I'm still just your typical lisp hacker that wants
> to play with different implementations and compare them, and stuff like
> that.
You have a vivid imagination to think you were treated differently
than others because of your perspective.
We extend licenses for people, on a case by case basis, after the 6
months is up. You only used 1 month of your 6 months. I don't see
how you can even begin to claim that you tested our policy, given the
facts.
Why don't you just renew your license, the way many people do every
single day?
--
Kevin Layer
Franz Inc.
·····@killspam.known.net writes:
> David Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
> > I'd actually never read the policy. It just felt a bit unfair, because
> > I express my views openly, and only want to help the community, and if I
> > think something is a problem, I'll say something (e.g. here, regarding
> > Franz), and some people might go one way or another (which is not the
> > point -- the point is to inform and to correct). But I never dreamed
> > that I'd be treated differently for this, i.e. from the perspective of a
> > free trial policy. I'm still just your typical lisp hacker that wants
> > to play with different implementations and compare them, and stuff like
> > that.
>
> You have a vivid imagination to think you were treated differently
> than others because of your perspective.
okay...
> We extend licenses for people, on a case by case basis, after the 6
> months is up. You only used 1 month of your 6 months. I don't see
> how you can even begin to claim that you tested our policy, given the
> facts.
Well, my 30-day license expired, I ran the "newlicense" program in the
Allegro directory, and it said the following:
----
dave% ./newlicense ·····@alum.mit.edu
Contacting the Trial license server, please wait. It may take several
minutes, so please do not interrupt this program or start multiple
license queries. Thank you.
Contacting license server...
To extend your Trial license you must contact Franz Inc. via email
(license-request) or phone (510-548-3600).
----
when I did this, I was completely online, and logged in as root on the
machine.
> Why don't you just renew your license, the way many people do every
> single day?
What part of the above did I do wrong? As far as I know, I did
*exactly* what the directions said to do.
dave
David Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> ·····@killspam.known.net writes:
>
> > David Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> >
> > > I'd actually never read the policy. It just felt a bit unfair, because
> > > I express my views openly, and only want to help the community, and if I
> > > think something is a problem, I'll say something (e.g. here, regarding
> > > Franz), and some people might go one way or another (which is not the
> > > point -- the point is to inform and to correct). But I never dreamed
> > > that I'd be treated differently for this, i.e. from the perspective of a
> > > free trial policy. I'm still just your typical lisp hacker that wants
> > > to play with different implementations and compare them, and stuff like
> > > that.
> >
> > You have a vivid imagination to think you were treated differently
> > than others because of your perspective.
>
> okay...
>
> > We extend licenses for people, on a case by case basis, after the 6
> > months is up. You only used 1 month of your 6 months. I don't see
> > how you can even begin to claim that you tested our policy, given the
> > facts.
>
> Well, my 30-day license expired, I ran the "newlicense" program in the
> Allegro directory, and it said the following:
>
> ----
>
> dave% ./newlicense ·····@alum.mit.edu
> Contacting the Trial license server, please wait. It may take several
> minutes, so please do not interrupt this program or start multiple
> license queries. Thank you.
>
> Contacting license server...
>
> To extend your Trial license you must contact Franz Inc. via email
> (license-request) or phone (510-548-3600).
I think we should make this error message better for the next
release. I promise to do so.
> ----
>
> when I did this, I was completely online, and logged in as root on the
> machine.
>
> > Why don't you just renew your license, the way many people do every
> > single day?
>
> What part of the above did I do wrong? As far as I know, I did
> *exactly* what the directions said to do.
As we worked out in private emails to each other, for the benefit of
readers of c.l.l, you needed to use the original email address. We're
still working out why, when you did this, that the new license didn't
work.
>
> dave
--
Kevin Layer
Franz Inc.
·····@killspam.known.net writes:
> > > Why don't you just renew your license, the way many people do every
> > > single day?
> >
> > What part of the above did I do wrong? As far as I know, I did
> > *exactly* what the directions said to do.
>
> As we worked out in private emails to each other, for the benefit of
> readers of c.l.l, you needed to use the original email address. We're
> still working out why, when you did this, that the new license didn't
> work.
yes. this was a misunderstanding, and I strongly appologize for my
assumption that this was ill will from Franz. Again, I did send email
to Franz back when this happend, and got no response (for over a month),
but do realize that that could just have been that ····@franz.com has
a list of things to worry about from paying customers. Again, thanks a
lot, (esp. Kevin), and sorry for the misunderstanding.
dave
"Julian" <······@123lomberg456.net> writes:
> Oh! I was just quoting the policy they have posted up on their web site
> (re renewal of the trial for up to 6 months). Go to:
> http://www.franz.com/downloads/index.php3#acl and look at the last
> bullet point under limitations. It's interesting to hear that maybe they
> don't actually follow these rules (or at least didn't in your
> case). Thanks for the info,
>
> Julian.
It may be interesting to hear, but it is false information.
--
Kevin Layer
Franz Inc.
David Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> "Julian" <······@123lomberg456.net> writes:
>
> > There's a large degree of subjective opinion in deciding which you
> > prefer. Allegro is very expensive to buy I hear (someone mentioned a
> > price to me of $1,750 for personal use! I have no idea if this is
> > correct so you must check this with Franz. I don't want to
> > accidentally spread mis-information). To play with the trial edition
> > you get a 1 month license key from their web site. The rules say you
> > can extend this each month, up to a total of 6 months, but after that
> > you have some serious money to pay if you want to keep using it.
>
> This is certainly not true (at least the latter part). The first part,
> about ACL being expensive, is definitely true, of course, as anyone
> who's ever spoken to a Franz sales rep would know.
>
> As for renewing the 30-day license. That's nonsense. They never
> renewed mine, despite the fact that I answered their email surveys, have
> reported bugs and suggestions to their company, etc.
David, the reason you couldn't renew your license was because of an
error on your part. You didn't give the correct email address to the
`newlicense' program. To be precise (from our logs), on 11/20/2000
you tried to renew with email address ·····@alum.mit.edu, however you
originally used ········@yahoo.com when you obtained the license. If
you look in the license file itself, you will see that this is true.
The usage for the `newlicense' program states that you must use the
same email address that you originally used to get the license file.
--
Kevin Layer
Franz Inc.
"Julian" <······@123lomberg456.net> writes:
> To play with the trial edition you get a 1 month license key from
> their web site. The rules say you can extend this each month, up to
> a total of 6 months, but after that you have some serious money to
> pay if you want to keep using it.
After the initial 6 month period, you must contact us for further
extensions.
Before the 6 month period is up, you use a program, called
`newlicense', to get your license updated.
Kevin Layer
Franz Inc.
In article <············@venus.telepac.pt>,
"Paulo J. Matos aka PDestroy" <········@netcabo.pt> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm going to start programming Lisp under Windows 2000, I've been in ALU =
> and I was searching for compilers and somethings like that.
> Is there any IDE around? What's the most common windows utilities used =
> around?
IMHO, Emacs and CLISP are a good combination (and free), as long as you are
willing to learn Emacs. Corman Lisp is another very good option, faster and
not very expensive, it comes with a simple IDE (so you don't have to learn
Emacs) and generates standalone EXEs with COM support.
For still higher performance or features you may want one of the more
expensive commercial systems. Check http://www.alu.org/table/systems.htm for
pointers.
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/