I am beginning to learn LISP, and neither of the two books that I have
reference building an standalone
executable for execution on a Windows OS.
How is this accomplished ? I am using the personal edition of LispWorks. by
XANALYS.
Any help or a pointer to a website where this is documented would be
appreciated.
- Thanks
Dale Lee
Dale Lee wrote:
> I am beginning to learn LISP, and neither of the two books that I have
> reference building an standalone
> executable for execution on a Windows OS.
>
> How is this accomplished ? I am using the personal edition of LispWorks. by
> XANALYS.
>
> Any help or a pointer to a website where this is documented would be
> appreciated.
This is not standardized but part of a concrete Common Lisp
implementation. In the case of LispWorks, it's not possible to create a
standalone executable with the personal edition, you need a different
version.
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
Thanks.
Can you recommend any free IDE versions that will produce an executable ?
- Dale Lee
"Pascal Costanza" <········@web.de> wrote in message
·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
> Dale Lee wrote:
> > I am beginning to learn LISP, and neither of the two books that I have
> > reference building an standalone
> > executable for execution on a Windows OS.
> >
> > How is this accomplished ? I am using the personal edition of
LispWorks. by
> > XANALYS.
> >
> > Any help or a pointer to a website where this is documented would be
> > appreciated.
>
> This is not standardized but part of a concrete Common Lisp
> implementation. In the case of LispWorks, it's not possible to create a
> standalone executable with the personal edition, you need a different
> version.
>
>
> Pascal
>
> --
> Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
> are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
> rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
>
No, I am sorry but I don't know the details of all implementations. ;)
The major commercial vendors of Common Lisp for Windows are
http://www.cormanlisp.com, http://www.franz.com and
http://www.lispworks.com. More links to other Common Lisp
implementations can be found at http://www.lisp.org
I hope this helps.
Pascal
Dale Lee wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> Can you recommend any free IDE versions that will produce an executable ?
>
> - Dale Lee
>
>
> "Pascal Costanza" <········@web.de> wrote in message
> ·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
>
>>Dale Lee wrote:
>>
>>>I am beginning to learn LISP, and neither of the two books that I have
>>>reference building an standalone
>>>executable for execution on a Windows OS.
>>>
>>>How is this accomplished ? I am using the personal edition of
>
> LispWorks. by
>
>>>XANALYS.
>>>
>>>Any help or a pointer to a website where this is documented would be
>>>appreciated.
>>
>>This is not standardized but part of a concrete Common Lisp
>>implementation. In the case of LispWorks, it's not possible to create a
>>standalone executable with the personal edition, you need a different
>>version.
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
Dale Lee wrote:
> Can you recommend any free IDE versions that will produce an executable ?
Why do you want one? Do you think this is somehow necessary to learning
Lisp?
Note: if you also insisted on a free OS you would be using Linux, and
then you would have a free Lisp, CMUCL. And if you happen to have a Mac,
PowerLisp (OS9) is free (whether it builds exe is left as an exercise)
and there is OpenMCL for OS X. (I know you said win32, just tossing out
info randomly).
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
Thanks.
DOS was great, but it's gone.
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
·····················@nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> Dale Lee wrote:
> > Can you recommend any free IDE versions that will produce an executable
?
>
> Why do you want one? Do you think this is somehow necessary to learning
> Lisp?
>
> Note: if you also insisted on a free OS you would be using Linux, and
> then you would have a free Lisp, CMUCL. And if you happen to have a Mac,
> PowerLisp (OS9) is free (whether it builds exe is left as an exercise)
> and there is OpenMCL for OS X. (I know you said win32, just tossing out
> info randomly).
>
> --
>
> kenny tilton
> clinisys, inc
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> ""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
> and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
> Elwood P. Dowd
>
"Dale Lee" <·······@erols.com> wrote in message
·················@bob.news.rcn.net...
> "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> ·····················@nyc.rr.com...
> >
> >
> > Dale Lee wrote:
> > > Can you recommend any free IDE versions that will produce an
executable
> ?
> >
> > Why do you want one? Do you think this is somehow necessary to learning
> > Lisp?
> >
> > Note: if you also insisted on a free OS you would be using Linux, and
> > then you would have a free Lisp, CMUCL. And if you happen to have a Mac,
> > PowerLisp (OS9) is free (whether it builds exe is left as an exercise)
> > and there is OpenMCL for OS X. (I know you said win32, just tossing out
> > info randomly).
> >
[top posting corrected]
> Thanks.
> DOS was great, but it's gone.
I'm very curious what this comment has to do with Kenny's reply...or with
producing executables. I think there are a lot of assumptions in what you
think you want but I cannot guess what they are.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Only that just as Windows was an improvement in DOS, having an IDE available
during the learning
process, if for nothing else than to copy and paste, would be an
improvement, I think, to having a just DOS
based interpreter. This does not have to do with producing executables.
I probably am making incorrect assumptions, I look forward to correcting
them as I progress.
- Dale
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
··················@otis.netspace.net.au...
>
> "Dale Lee" <·······@erols.com> wrote in message
> ·················@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > ·····················@nyc.rr.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Dale Lee wrote:
> > > > Can you recommend any free IDE versions that will produce an
> executable
> > ?
> > >
> > > Why do you want one? Do you think this is somehow necessary to
learning
> > > Lisp?
> > >
> > > Note: if you also insisted on a free OS you would be using Linux, and
> > > then you would have a free Lisp, CMUCL. And if you happen to have a
Mac,
> > > PowerLisp (OS9) is free (whether it builds exe is left as an exercise)
> > > and there is OpenMCL for OS X. (I know you said win32, just tossing
out
> > > info randomly).
> > >
> [top posting corrected]
>
> > Thanks.
> > DOS was great, but it's gone.
>
> I'm very curious what this comment has to do with Kenny's reply...or with
> producing executables. I think there are a lot of assumptions in what you
> think you want but I cannot guess what they are.
>
> --
> Coby Beck
> (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
>
>
"Dale Lee" <·······@erols.com> writes:
> Only that just as Windows was an improvement in DOS, having an IDE available
> during the learning
> process, if for nothing else than to copy and paste, would be an
> improvement, I think, to having a just DOS
> based interpreter. This does not have to do with producing executables.
>
> I probably am making incorrect assumptions, I look forward to correcting
> them as I progress.
Fine. First thing: all these "interpreters" have a compiler in
there. Some only compile.
And a command line does not mean it is "dos based". Command lines are
actually terribly powerfull.
Regards,
Mario.
"Dale Lee" <·······@erols.com> wrote in message
·················@bob.news.rcn.net...
> "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> ··················@otis.netspace.net.au...
> >
> > "Dale Lee" <·······@erols.com> wrote in message
> > ·················@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > > "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > ·····················@nyc.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dale Lee wrote:
> > > > > Can you recommend any free IDE versions that will produce an
> > executable
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > Why do you want one? Do you think this is somehow necessary to
> learning
> > > > Lisp?
> > > >
> > > > Note: if you also insisted on a free OS you would be using Linux,
and
> > > > then you would have a free Lisp, CMUCL. And if you happen to have a
> Mac,
> > > > PowerLisp (OS9) is free (whether it builds exe is left as an
exercise)
> > > > and there is OpenMCL for OS X. (I know you said win32, just tossing
> out
> > > > info randomly).
> > > >
> > [top posting corrected]
> >
> > > Thanks.
> > > DOS was great, but it's gone.
> >
> > I'm very curious what this comment has to do with Kenny's reply...or
with
> > producing executables. I think there are a lot of assumptions in what
you
> > think you want but I cannot guess what they are.
>
> Only that just as Windows was an improvement in DOS, having an IDE
available
> during the learning
> process, if for nothing else than to copy and paste, would be an
> improvement, I think, to having a just DOS
> based interpreter.
LispWorks and Allegro both have nice IDE's, I think Corman Common Lisp does,
I don't know. There are evaluation (free but limited) versions of these.
What are you using now?
> This does not have to do with producing executables.
>
> I probably am making incorrect assumptions, I look forward to correcting
> them as I progress.
Check out www.lisp.org for assumption elimination :) and lists of various
implementations.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
I am using the free edition of LispWorks, as I go read through LISP, A
Gentle Introduction.
-Dale
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
··················@otis.netspace.net.au...
>
> "Dale Lee" <·······@erols.com> wrote in message
> ·················@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> > ··················@otis.netspace.net.au...
> > >
> > > "Dale Lee" <·······@erols.com> wrote in message
> > > ·················@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > > > "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > ·····················@nyc.rr.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dale Lee wrote:
> > > > > > Can you recommend any free IDE versions that will produce an
> > > executable
> > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you want one? Do you think this is somehow necessary to
> > learning
> > > > > Lisp?
> > > > >
> > > > > Note: if you also insisted on a free OS you would be using Linux,
> and
> > > > > then you would have a free Lisp, CMUCL. And if you happen to have
a
> > Mac,
> > > > > PowerLisp (OS9) is free (whether it builds exe is left as an
> exercise)
> > > > > and there is OpenMCL for OS X. (I know you said win32, just
tossing
> > out
> > > > > info randomly).
> > > > >
> > > [top posting corrected]
> > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > DOS was great, but it's gone.
> > >
> > > I'm very curious what this comment has to do with Kenny's reply...or
> with
> > > producing executables. I think there are a lot of assumptions in what
> you
> > > think you want but I cannot guess what they are.
> >
> > Only that just as Windows was an improvement in DOS, having an IDE
> available
> > during the learning
> > process, if for nothing else than to copy and paste, would be an
> > improvement, I think, to having a just DOS
> > based interpreter.
>
> LispWorks and Allegro both have nice IDE's, I think Corman Common Lisp
does,
> I don't know. There are evaluation (free but limited) versions of these.
> What are you using now?
>
> > This does not have to do with producing executables.
> >
> > I probably am making incorrect assumptions, I look forward to correcting
> > them as I progress.
>
> Check out www.lisp.org for assumption elimination :) and lists of various
> implementations.
>
> --
> Coby Beck
> (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
>
>