From: Brian P Templeton
Subject: Re: GUI for Lisp and Cygwin/Xfree86
Date:
Message-ID: <873d1bk0al.fsf@tunes.org>
······@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L Olczyk) writes:
> Has anyone tried to use one of the GUI toolkits for lisp which uses X
> on a PC running the cygwin X-server?
CLX and, e.g., McCLIM and McCLIM-CLX should work with any X server,
IIANM. Other toolkits, such as CLG, should work, too, as long as the
underlying toolkit works (GTK+ in that case).
(BTW, the ``cygwin X-server'' is XFree86. The Cygwin developers did
not create it.)
--
BPT <···@tunes.org> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
backronym for Linux: \ / No HTML or RTF in mail
Linux Is Not Unix X No MS-Word in mail
Meme plague ;) ---------> / \ Respect Open Standards
Have you tried newLISP?
http://www.nuevatec.com/
http://welcome.to/newlisp
> Has anyone tried to use one of the GUI toolkits for lisp which uses X
> on a PC running the cygwin X-server?
From: ·······@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: GUI for Lisp and Cygwin/Xfree86
Date:
Message-ID: <20020113161456.A6060@emu>
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 06:44:34PM +0000, Crusty wrote:
>
> Have you tried newLISP?
Quotes from the documentation:
newLISP is closer to 'Scheme' than it is to 'Common LISP', but is also
different in some aspects from both dialects of LISP. newLISP does not
try to implement every feature found in computer languages, but focuses
on the core components of LISP: Lists, Symbols and Lambda expressions.
To these core elements newLISP adds dynamic scoping of variables, name
spaces and local states in lambda expressions.
[...]
newLISP has no built in array data type or support for hash tables, but
can simulate arrays and hash tables efficiently. If only a few hundred
elements are used in an array list then the access can be done via the
builtin functions nth and replace-nth etc. For hash tables the functions
assoc and replace-assoc can be used on association lists. When more
elements are used, it is more efficient to simulate arrays and hash tables
via newLISP symbols.
When I first came upon this some time ago, I was startled to see "features"
like those quoted above. Far from being new, "newLISP" appears to be a
throwback. I'm not too sure I see the advantages in this type of environment;
it seems to be Yet Another Bad Lisp Interpreter. I am sure the designers
of this system have a reason for their choices, but they seem a bit quixotic
to me. Perhaps you have better information on these matters?
>
> http://www.nuevatec.com/
> http://welcome.to/newlisp
>
>
> > Has anyone tried to use one of the GUI toolkits for lisp which uses X
> > on a PC running the cygwin X-server?
>
--
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;; Matthew Danish email: ·······@andrew.cmu.edu ;;
;; OpenPGP public key available from: 'finger ···@db.debian.org' ;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
It's certainly not standard, but it is very easy to work with. I'll leave
the pointy-head discussions to whoever wants to deal with those sort of
details.
NewLISP is a clean, straightforward environment for getting things done.
It works across **ix and Windows platforms, has networking support built
in, and includes a serviceable GUI. How many implementations, LISP or
otherwise, can you name with those qualities?
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 06:44:34PM +0000, Crusty wrote:
>>
>> Have you tried newLISP?
> Quotes from the documentation:
>
> newLISP is closer to 'Scheme' than it is to 'Common LISP', but is also
> different in some aspects from both dialects of LISP. newLISP does not
> try to implement every feature found in computer languages, but focuses
> on the core components of LISP: Lists, Symbols and Lambda expressions.
> To these core elements newLISP adds dynamic scoping of variables, name
> spaces and local states in lambda expressions.
> [...]
> newLISP has no built in array data type or support for hash tables, but
> can simulate arrays and hash tables efficiently. If only a few hundred
> elements are used in an array list then the access can be done via the
> builtin functions nth and replace-nth etc. For hash tables the functions
> assoc and replace-assoc can be used on association lists. When more
> elements are used, it is more efficient to simulate arrays and hash
> tables via newLISP symbols.
>
> When I first came upon this some time ago, I was startled to see
> "features"
> like those quoted above. Far from being new, "newLISP" appears to be a
> throwback. I'm not too sure I see the advantages in this type of
> environment;
> it seems to be Yet Another Bad Lisp Interpreter. I am sure the designers
> of this system have a reason for their choices, but they seem a bit
> quixotic
> to me. Perhaps you have better information on these matters?
>
>>
>> http://www.nuevatec.com/
>> http://welcome.to/newlisp
>>
>>
>> > Has anyone tried to use one of the GUI toolkits for lisp which uses X
>> > on a PC running the cygwin X-server?
>>
>
From: ·······@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: GUI for Lisp and Cygwin/Xfree86
Date:
Message-ID: <20020114215440.G6060@emu>
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 06:36:49PM +0000, Crusty wrote:
>
> It's certainly not standard, but it is very easy to work with. I'll leave
> the pointy-head discussions to whoever wants to deal with those sort of
> details.
Please indicate the point in my response where I referred to a "standard"
of any sort. Your dismissal of so-called "pointy-head" discussions is
premature; it seems I made far too many assumptions when I posted my
original response. For your benefit, I shall clarify why these "pointy-
head" issues are important:
1. Lack of properly implemented arrays leads to poor performance in
algorithms suited to constant-time access data structures. Over-use
of lists is attractive but can lead to extremely inefficient code.
I see that it is suggested to implement vectors in newLISP by
mangling symbol names. Now newLISP may have a very good symbol
table implementation, but this approach hardly seems clean as it
requires arrays to be named.
2. Dynamic scoping has been abandoned in almost all modern Lisp
implementations because lexical scoping is generally agreed to
be much easier to work with as well as giving the ability to
close over state. I see that newLISP allows you to define a
lexical closure but I'd much rather work with them as the
default. Common Lisp allows you to declare variables to be
'special' aka 'dynamically scoped' but is lexically scoped
otherwise.
>
> NewLISP is a clean, straightforward environment for getting things done.
Clean and straightforward are what are in contest here. newLISP
lacks the features which normally are associated with practical
programming.
> It works across **ix and Windows platforms, has networking support built
> in, and includes a serviceable GUI. How many implementations, LISP or
> otherwise, can you name with those qualities?
How about Common Lisp + CLIM? Pick your implementation.
Earlier, I asked you a simple question. Instead of answering it, you
rudely dismissed it. If you continue to shunt aside my evidence and
do not provide a substantial counter-argument then I will regard your
posts as trolls.
>
>
> > On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 06:44:34PM +0000, Crusty wrote:
> >>
> >> Have you tried newLISP?
> > Quotes from the documentation:
> >
> > newLISP is closer to 'Scheme' than it is to 'Common LISP', but is also
> > different in some aspects from both dialects of LISP. newLISP does not
> > try to implement every feature found in computer languages, but focuses
> > on the core components of LISP: Lists, Symbols and Lambda expressions.
> > To these core elements newLISP adds dynamic scoping of variables, name
> > spaces and local states in lambda expressions.
> > [...]
> > newLISP has no built in array data type or support for hash tables, but
> > can simulate arrays and hash tables efficiently. If only a few hundred
> > elements are used in an array list then the access can be done via the
> > builtin functions nth and replace-nth etc. For hash tables the functions
> > assoc and replace-assoc can be used on association lists. When more
> > elements are used, it is more efficient to simulate arrays and hash
> > tables via newLISP symbols.
> >
> > When I first came upon this some time ago, I was startled to see
> > "features"
> > like those quoted above. Far from being new, "newLISP" appears to be a
> > throwback. I'm not too sure I see the advantages in this type of
> > environment;
> > it seems to be Yet Another Bad Lisp Interpreter. I am sure the designers
> > of this system have a reason for their choices, but they seem a bit
> > quixotic
> > to me. Perhaps you have better information on these matters?
> >
> >>
> >> http://www.nuevatec.com/
> >> http://welcome.to/newlisp
> >>
> >>
> >> > Has anyone tried to use one of the GUI toolkits for lisp which uses X
> >> > on a PC running the cygwin X-server?
> >>
> >
>
--
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;; Matthew Danish email: ·······@andrew.cmu.edu ;;
;; OpenPGP public key available from: 'finger ···@db.debian.org' ;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
The question you asked was if I had information on the Quixotic choices of
the implementors, and the answer is no. The original post asked for help
with a GUI problem using Lisp under Cygwin under Windows. My short answer
to that was to try newLISP. In my opinion, the cleanest and easiest way to
do just about anything under Windows is to use newLISP. Cygwin and Tk are
built-in, as are editor and debugger. Simple to install and use, you can
be building a "push me" button in five minutes.
Sure, there may be a million reasons to use some other environment. I don't
know what the poster is trying to do, or what his level of competence might
be. But if he is trying to drain swamps without dealing with alligators he
could do a lot worse than to try newLISP. We can disagree, it's okay.
>>
>> It's certainly not standard, but it is very easy to work with. I'll leave
>> the pointy-head discussions to whoever wants to deal with those sort of
>> details.
>
> Please indicate the point in my response where I referred to a "standard"
> of any sort. Your dismissal of so-called "pointy-head" discussions is
> premature; it seems I made far too many assumptions when I posted my
> original response. For your benefit, I shall clarify why these "pointy-
> head" issues are important:
>
> 1. Lack of properly implemented arrays leads to poor performance in
> algorithms suited to constant-time access data structures. Over-use
> of lists is attractive but can lead to extremely inefficient code.
> I see that it is suggested to implement vectors in newLISP by
> mangling symbol names. Now newLISP may have a very good symbol
> table implementation, but this approach hardly seems clean as it
> requires arrays to be named.
>
> 2. Dynamic scoping has been abandoned in almost all modern Lisp
> implementations because lexical scoping is generally agreed to
> be much easier to work with as well as giving the ability to
> close over state. I see that newLISP allows you to define a
> lexical closure but I'd much rather work with them as the
> default. Common Lisp allows you to declare variables to be
> 'special' aka 'dynamically scoped' but is lexically scoped
> otherwise.
>
>>
>> NewLISP is a clean, straightforward environment for getting things done.
>
> Clean and straightforward are what are in contest here. newLISP
> lacks the features which normally are associated with practical
> programming.
>
>> It works across **ix and Windows platforms, has networking support built
>> in, and includes a serviceable GUI. How many implementations, LISP or
>> otherwise, can you name with those qualities?
>
> How about Common Lisp + CLIM? Pick your implementation.
>
>
> Earlier, I asked you a simple question. Instead of answering it, you
> rudely dismissed it. If you continue to shunt aside my evidence and
> do not provide a substantial counter-argument then I will regard your
> posts as trolls.
>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 06:44:34PM +0000, Crusty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Have you tried newLISP?
>> > Quotes from the documentation:
>> >
>> > newLISP is closer to 'Scheme' than it is to 'Common LISP', but is also
>> > different in some aspects from both dialects of LISP. newLISP does not
>> > try to implement every feature found in computer languages, but
>> > focuses on the core components of LISP: Lists, Symbols and Lambda
>> > expressions. To these core elements newLISP adds dynamic scoping of
>> > variables, name spaces and local states in lambda expressions.
>> > [...]
>> > newLISP has no built in array data type or support for hash tables,
>> > but can simulate arrays and hash tables efficiently. If only a few
>> > hundred elements are used in an array list then the access can be done
>> > via the builtin functions nth and replace-nth etc. For hash tables the
>> > functions
>> > assoc and replace-assoc can be used on association lists. When more
>> > elements are used, it is more efficient to simulate arrays and hash
>> > tables via newLISP symbols.
>> >
>> > When I first came upon this some time ago, I was startled to see
>> > "features"
>> > like those quoted above. Far from being new, "newLISP" appears to be a
>> > throwback. I'm not too sure I see the advantages in this type of
>> > environment;
>> > it seems to be Yet Another Bad Lisp Interpreter. I am sure the
>> > designers of this system have a reason for their choices, but they seem
>> > a bit quixotic
>> > to me. Perhaps you have better information on these matters?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> http://www.nuevatec.com/
>> >> http://welcome.to/newlisp
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Has anyone tried to use one of the GUI toolkits for lisp which uses
>> >> > X on a PC running the cygwin X-server?
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:36:49 GMT, Crusty ("Crusty") writes:
Crusty> It's certainly not standard, but it is very easy to work with. I'll leave
Crusty> the pointy-head discussions to whoever wants to deal with those sort of
Crusty> details.
Crusty> NewLISP is a clean, straightforward environment for getting things done.
Crusty> It works across **ix and Windows platforms, has networking support built
Crusty> in, and includes a serviceable GUI. How many implementations, LISP or
Crusty> otherwise, can you name with those qualities?
If you want Common Lisp, Xanalys Lispworks;
if you want Scheme, I think there are a bunch.
Crusty <··········@isp.com> writes:
> It's certainly not standard, but it is very easy to work with. I'll leave
> the pointy-head discussions to whoever wants to deal with those sort of
> details.
>
> NewLISP is a clean, straightforward environment for getting things done.
> It works across **ix and Windows platforms, has networking support built
> in, and includes a serviceable GUI. How many implementations, LISP or
> otherwise, can you name with those qualities?
It seems about as clean and straightforward as Emacs Lisp, which, btw,
has networking support and a text-based GUI built in (require 'widget).
It can certainly be well characterized as an environment in which to
get things done, for better and worse... not that I'm actually
recommending Emacs Lisp to the OP.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Brian P Templeton
Subject: Re: GUI for Lisp and Cygwin/Xfree86
Date:
Message-ID: <87y9ixaj9a.fsf@tunes.org>
···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> Crusty <··········@isp.com> writes:
>
>> It's certainly not standard, but it is very easy to work with. I'll leave
>> the pointy-head discussions to whoever wants to deal with those sort of
>> details.
>>
>> NewLISP is a clean, straightforward environment for getting things done.
>> It works across **ix and Windows platforms, has networking support built
>> in, and includes a serviceable GUI. How many implementations, LISP or
>> otherwise, can you name with those qualities?
>
> It seems about as clean and straightforward as Emacs Lisp, which, btw,
> has networking support and a text-based GUI built in (require 'widget).
Not necessarily text-based, in the X11 version.
> It can certainly be well characterized as an environment in which to
> get things done, for better and worse... not that I'm actually
> recommending Emacs Lisp to the OP.
>
> --
> /|_ .-----------------------.
> ,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
> ,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
> / / `-----------------------'
> ( -. |
> | ) |
> (`-. '--.)
> `. )----'
--
BPT <···@tunes.org> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
backronym for Linux: \ / No HTML or RTF in mail
Linux Is Not Unix X No MS-Word in mail
Meme plague ;) ---------> / \ Respect Open Standards
My take on newLISP:
It's kind of neat. But the GUI support is beyond hackish. It's not like
STk, where you can do something natural like:
(pack
(make <button>
:label "click me"
:command (lambda () (format "hallo spaceboy!\n")))
IIRC, with newLISP/Tk, you have to write Tk code. You do something more
like:
(send-tk "button .b -label \"hallo\" -command {{(lambda () (print "yo"))}}")
(send-tk "pack .b")
The {{x}} craziness has to do with telling Tk to send the contents of the
string stored in the command property when the button is clicked. At that
point, you may as well just hack together your own port with wish and get
a more standard LISP. One plus of newLISP is that it has a (somewhat
unstable) code browser.
Well, Squeak Smalltalk satisfies those qualities in a way that is above
and beyond newLISP. I know it's no LISP, but the "LISP or otherwise"
drove me to it.
Regards,
Aaron
Aaron Reichow :: UMD ACM Pres :: http://www.d.umn.edu/~reic0024/
"the end of the human race will be that it will eventually
die of civilization. " :: r. w. emerson
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Crusty wrote:
>
> It's certainly not standard, but it is very easy to work with. I'll leave
> the pointy-head discussions to whoever wants to deal with those sort of
> details.
>
> NewLISP is a clean, straightforward environment for getting things done.
> It works across **ix and Windows platforms, has networking support built
> in, and includes a serviceable GUI. How many implementations, LISP or
> otherwise, can you name with those qualities?
>
>
> > On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 06:44:34PM +0000, Crusty wrote:
> >>
> >> Have you tried newLISP?
> > Quotes from the documentation:
> >
> > newLISP is closer to 'Scheme' than it is to 'Common LISP', but is also
> > different in some aspects from both dialects of LISP. newLISP does not
> > try to implement every feature found in computer languages, but focuses
> > on the core components of LISP: Lists, Symbols and Lambda expressions.
> > To these core elements newLISP adds dynamic scoping of variables, name
> > spaces and local states in lambda expressions.
> > [...]
> > newLISP has no built in array data type or support for hash tables, but
> > can simulate arrays and hash tables efficiently. If only a few hundred
> > elements are used in an array list then the access can be done via the
> > builtin functions nth and replace-nth etc. For hash tables the functions
> > assoc and replace-assoc can be used on association lists. When more
> > elements are used, it is more efficient to simulate arrays and hash
> > tables via newLISP symbols.
> >
> > When I first came upon this some time ago, I was startled to see
> > "features"
> > like those quoted above. Far from being new, "newLISP" appears to be a
> > throwback. I'm not too sure I see the advantages in this type of
> > environment;
> > it seems to be Yet Another Bad Lisp Interpreter. I am sure the designers
> > of this system have a reason for their choices, but they seem a bit
> > quixotic
> > to me. Perhaps you have better information on these matters?
> >
> >>
> >> http://www.nuevatec.com/
> >> http://welcome.to/newlisp
> >>
> >>
> >> > Has anyone tried to use one of the GUI toolkits for lisp which uses X
> >> > on a PC running the cygwin X-server?
> >>
> >
>
>
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:16:54 -0600, Aaron J Reichow
<········@d.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>My take on newLISP:
>It's kind of neat. But the GUI support is beyond hackish. It's not like
>STk, where you can do something natural like:
>
>(pack
> (make <button>
> :label "click me"
> :command (lambda () (format "hallo spaceboy!\n")))
>
>IIRC, with newLISP/Tk, you have to write Tk code. You do something more
>like:
>
>(send-tk "button .b -label \"hallo\" -command {{(lambda () (print "yo"))}}")
>(send-tk "pack .b")
>
>The {{x}} craziness has to do with telling Tk to send the contents of the
>string stored in the command property when the button is clicked. At that
>point, you may as well just hack together your own port with wish and get
>a more standard LISP. One plus of newLISP is that it has a (somewhat
>unstable) code browser.
>
>Well, Squeak Smalltalk satisfies those qualities in a way that is above
>and beyond newLISP. I know it's no LISP, but the "LISP or otherwise"
>drove me to it.
But Squeak sucks big time speedwise ( compare to VisualWorks ).
How does newLisp compare that way.
>>It's kind of neat. But the GUI support is beyond hackish.
Earlier Windows versions of newLISP were written for the Win32 API. It
really impressed me, how elegantly it simplified that bag o'worms. I've
argued that newLISP should be wildly successful for doing that one thing
well, but the author has opted for universality via Tk.
From: Brian P Templeton
Subject: Re: GUI for Lisp and Cygwin/Xfree86
Date:
Message-ID: <873d1745ak.fsf@tunes.org>
Crusty <··········@isp.com> writes:
> It's certainly not standard, but it is very easy to work with. I'll leave
> the pointy-head discussions to whoever wants to deal with those sort of
> details.
>
> NewLISP is a clean, straightforward environment for getting things done.
> It works across **ix and Windows platforms, has networking support built
> in, and includes a serviceable GUI. How many implementations, LISP or
> otherwise, can you name with those qualities?
>
Common Lisp - no single implementation, but ILISP, clocc-port, and
CLIM.
>
>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 06:44:34PM +0000, Crusty wrote:
>>>
>>> Have you tried newLISP?
>> Quotes from the documentation:
>>
>> newLISP is closer to 'Scheme' than it is to 'Common LISP', but is also
>> different in some aspects from both dialects of LISP. newLISP does not
>> try to implement every feature found in computer languages, but focuses
>> on the core components of LISP: Lists, Symbols and Lambda expressions.
>> To these core elements newLISP adds dynamic scoping of variables, name
>> spaces and local states in lambda expressions.
>> [...]
>> newLISP has no built in array data type or support for hash tables, but
>> can simulate arrays and hash tables efficiently. If only a few hundred
>> elements are used in an array list then the access can be done via the
>> builtin functions nth and replace-nth etc. For hash tables the functions
>> assoc and replace-assoc can be used on association lists. When more
>> elements are used, it is more efficient to simulate arrays and hash
>> tables via newLISP symbols.
>>
>> When I first came upon this some time ago, I was startled to see
>> "features"
>> like those quoted above. Far from being new, "newLISP" appears to be a
>> throwback. I'm not too sure I see the advantages in this type of
>> environment;
>> it seems to be Yet Another Bad Lisp Interpreter. I am sure the designers
>> of this system have a reason for their choices, but they seem a bit
>> quixotic
>> to me. Perhaps you have better information on these matters?
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.nuevatec.com/
>>> http://welcome.to/newlisp
>>>
>>>
>>> > Has anyone tried to use one of the GUI toolkits for lisp which uses X
>>> > on a PC running the cygwin X-server?
>>>
>>
>
--
BPT <···@tunes.org> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
backronym for Linux: \ / No HTML or RTF in mail
Linux Is Not Unix X No MS-Word in mail
Meme plague ;) ---------> / \ Respect Open Standards
From: Brian P Templeton
Subject: Re: GUI for Lisp and Cygwin/Xfree86
Date:
Message-ID: <87u1tlaj4x.fsf@tunes.org>
Brian P Templeton <···@tunes.org> writes:
> Crusty <··········@isp.com> writes:
>
>> It's certainly not standard, but it is very easy to work with. I'll leave
>> the pointy-head discussions to whoever wants to deal with those sort of
>> details.
>>
>> NewLISP is a clean, straightforward environment for getting things done.
>> It works across **ix and Windows platforms, has networking support built
>> in, and includes a serviceable GUI. How many implementations, LISP or
>> otherwise, can you name with those qualities?
>>
> Common Lisp - no single implementation,
... and that is an advantage, BTW.
> but ILISP, clocc-port, and
> CLIM.
>
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 06:44:34PM +0000, Crusty wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Have you tried newLISP?
>>> Quotes from the documentation:
>>>
>>> newLISP is closer to 'Scheme' than it is to 'Common LISP', but is also
>>> different in some aspects from both dialects of LISP. newLISP does not
>>> try to implement every feature found in computer languages, but focuses
>>> on the core components of LISP: Lists, Symbols and Lambda expressions.
>>> To these core elements newLISP adds dynamic scoping of variables, name
>>> spaces and local states in lambda expressions.
>>> [...]
>>> newLISP has no built in array data type or support for hash tables, but
>>> can simulate arrays and hash tables efficiently. If only a few hundred
>>> elements are used in an array list then the access can be done via the
>>> builtin functions nth and replace-nth etc. For hash tables the functions
>>> assoc and replace-assoc can be used on association lists. When more
>>> elements are used, it is more efficient to simulate arrays and hash
>>> tables via newLISP symbols.
>>>
>>> When I first came upon this some time ago, I was startled to see
>>> "features"
>>> like those quoted above. Far from being new, "newLISP" appears to be a
>>> throwback. I'm not too sure I see the advantages in this type of
>>> environment;
>>> it seems to be Yet Another Bad Lisp Interpreter. I am sure the designers
>>> of this system have a reason for their choices, but they seem a bit
>>> quixotic
>>> to me. Perhaps you have better information on these matters?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nuevatec.com/
>>>> http://welcome.to/newlisp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Has anyone tried to use one of the GUI toolkits for lisp which uses X
>>>> > on a PC running the cygwin X-server?
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> BPT <···@tunes.org> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> backronym for Linux: \ / No HTML or RTF in mail
> Linux Is Not Unix X No MS-Word in mail
> Meme plague ;) ---------> / \ Respect Open Standards
--
BPT <···@tunes.org> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
backronym for Linux: \ / No HTML or RTF in mail
Linux Is Not Unix X No MS-Word in mail
Meme plague ;) ---------> / \ Respect Open Standards
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:44:34 GMT, Crusty <··········@isp.com> wrote:
>
>Have you tried newLISP?
>
>http://www.nuevatec.com/
>http://welcome.to/newlisp
>
>
>> Has anyone tried to use one of the GUI toolkits for lisp which uses X
>> on a PC running the cygwin X-server?
Hmmm. Does the binary work with NT ?
You don't ask for much, do you? :-)
If you are looking for an straightforward cross-platform GUI in a lisp-like
environment, then I can't think of a better way to go than newLISP.
> Hmmm. Does the binary work with NT ?
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:44:34 GMT, Crusty <··········@isp.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Have you tried newLISP?
>>
>>http://www.nuevatec.com/
>>http://welcome.to/newlisp
>>
>>
>>> Has anyone tried to use one of the GUI toolkits for lisp which uses X
>>> on a PC running the cygwin X-server?
> Hmmm. Does the binary work with NT ?
From: Brian P Templeton
Subject: Re: GUI for Lisp and Cygwin/Xfree86
Date:
Message-ID: <87y9iz2qn9.fsf@tunes.org>
Crusty <··········@isp.com> writes:
> You don't ask for much, do you? :-)
>
> If you are looking for an straightforward cross-platform GUI in a lisp-like
> environment, then I can't think of a better way to go than newLISP.
>
How about a straightforward, outstandingly flexible, standard,
cross-platfrom user interface manager in a real Lisp environment:
CLIM?
>> Hmmm. Does the binary work with NT ?
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:44:34 GMT, Crusty <··········@isp.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Have you tried newLISP?
>>>
>>>http://www.nuevatec.com/
>>>http://welcome.to/newlisp
>>>
>>>
>>>> Has anyone tried to use one of the GUI toolkits for lisp which uses X
>>>> on a PC running the cygwin X-server?
>> Hmmm. Does the binary work with NT ?
>
--
BPT <···@tunes.org> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
backronym for Linux: \ / No HTML or RTF in mail
Linux Is Not Unix X No MS-Word in mail
Meme plague ;) ---------> / \ Respect Open Standards