I'm looking for a decent free lisp compiler that does decent debugging or at
the very least can check for parentheses match. Any suggestions would be
very helpful since I've discovered that the lisp course I'm taking has a
crap editor for windows XP.
Thanks.
* "RisingShadow" <········@swirve.com>
| I'm looking for a decent free lisp compiler that does decent debugging or
| at the very least can check for parentheses match.
Have you tried asking that question to google, alltheweb, etc? Have you
looked at www.lisp.org?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
>* "RisingShadow" <········@swirve.com>
>| I'm looking for a decent free lisp compiler that does decent debugging or
>| at the very least can check for parentheses match.
Your best bet is probably to either use the free version of Lispworks
or to use clisp with Xemacs / Emacs as the frontend.
Personally, I like the Clisp + Emacs combination.
One of the options is to run clisp in "inferior lisp" mode.
This works very well.
BTW, try to ignore some of the rude replies that you will get.
That is part of life in comp.lang.lisp
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:04:05 +1000, Advance Australia Dear <····················@yahoo.com> said:
[...]
*> BTW, try to ignore some of the rude replies that you will get.
Some of the so-called `rude replies' may in fact be among the most
valuable replies, so I wouldn't find it advisable to ignore them.
---Vassil.
--
For an M-person job assigned to an N-person team, only rarely M=N.
Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:04:05 +1000, Advance Australia Dear <····················@yahoo.com> said:
>
> [...]
> *> BTW, try to ignore some of the rude replies that you will get.
>
> Some of the so-called `rude replies' may in fact be among the most
> valuable replies, so I wouldn't find it advisable to ignore them.
Usually, the particularly 'rude replies' are /not/ useful, amounting
to nothing more than throwing insults at someone. The "someone" may
be richly deserving of the insults, but that still doesn't make the
material useful.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ··········@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linuxxian.html
"Jedes grosse Unternehmen braucht sein Vietnam, und Microsoft wird
seines mit NT erleben" (Each large company needs its Vietnam, and
Microsoft will experience it with NT...) -- Irving Wladwasky-Berger
(IBM-Vice-President)
* Advance Australia Dear
| BTW, try to ignore some of the rude replies that you will get.
* Vassil Nikolov
| Some of the so-called `rude replies' may in fact be among the most
| valuable replies, so I wouldn't find it advisable to ignore them.
But why is "Advance Australia Dear" here? Do you think this person is
reading this newsgroup to make useful contributions and learn something
valuable? No name, another one obsessed with etiquette, and no money to
spend on programming in Common Lisp as a "hobby". The concept of
"valuable" to such a person is vastly different from that of someone who
has a desire to learn to program in Common Lisp. When people have no
purpose and no desire to learn, the only thing that matters to them is
how "friendly" and "nice" other people are to them, for no reason at all,
because "no reason" is all they can possibly offer for their own behavior.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
On 27 Oct 2002 22:07:24 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> said:
[...]
EN> The concept of "valuable" to such a person
Even though different people may _perceive_ different things to be
valuable, I posted my response nevertheless because I believe that
value is not in the eye of the beholder. Or am I wrong?
---Vassil.
--
For an M-person job assigned to an N-person team, only rarely M=N.
Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> wrote in
··················@poboxes.com:
> On 27 Oct 2002 22:07:24 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> said:
> [...]
> EN> The concept of "valuable" to such a person
>
> Even though different people may _perceive_ different things to be
> valuable, I posted my response nevertheless because I believe that
> value is not in the eye of the beholder. Or am I wrong?
That depends, very few things have built in value. Some of the things
that I think have builtin value are food, water and salt, if you do not
have enough you die. Common Lisp does not fall into that group, neither
does gold.
I do not know enough economics to "prove" my opinion but I feel that what
I am willing to pay for something is its value. The process is not
limited to the purchase + support price but includes the cost in my time
it takes to learn/use it. Almost always the cost of time to learn to use
a complex tool is much more expensive then the cost of purchase/support.
marc
>
> ---Vassil.
>
* Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com>
| Even though different people may _perceive_ different things to be
| valuable, I posted my response nevertheless because I believe that
| value is not in the eye of the beholder. Or am I wrong?
Value is always in the eye of the behold, but that does not by itself make
it subjective. You do not /invent/ the value, but take those parts of the
valued object or process or whatever that associate well with other things
you value or have valued. The network of valuation is anchored in some
core values that you have /chosen/, but there is no such thing as a value
relative to nothing (i.e., an absolute or objective value). A subjective
value would be relative /only/ to the person. In between these is the
personal choices that people make out of the multitude that is available.
Thus we can speak of objective potential value in that there is something
for someone to value, but the /actual/ value would still be in the eye of
the beholder.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
* Advance Australia Dear <····················@yahoo.com>
| BTW, try to ignore some of the rude replies that you will get.
| That is part of life in comp.lang.lisp
For some reason, making rude suggestions is also part of life in
comp.lang.lisp. So is accusing people of things they do not do.
I wonder if all these things are somehow related and if it would
change anything if any of the negativistic people just shut up?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
"RisingShadow" <········@swirve.com> writes:
> I'm looking for a decent free lisp compiler that does decent debugging or at
> the very least can check for parentheses match. Any suggestions would be
> very helpful since I've discovered that the lisp course I'm taking has a
> crap editor for windows XP.
CMU CL (http://www.cons.org/cmucl) is a nice free Lisp implementation
with a decent compiler. Steel Bank Common Lisp (http://sbcl.sf.net) is
closely related. Both won't run on Windows, however, but GNU CLISP
(http://clisp.cons.org) will.
There are also free (as in gratis), but usually restricted in one way
or another, versions of commercial Lisp systems, like Allegro CL
(http://www.franz.com), Corman Lisp
(http://www.cormanlisp.com/index.html) or Xanalys LispWorks
(http://www.lispworks.com).
But you really seem to be looking for a Lisp-friendly /editor/ - after
all, every Lisp compiler will barf at you if you get your parentheses
wrong... The commercial implementations tend to come with their own
editors (AFAIK at least Allegro and Corman on Windows do). Other than
that, one very popular editor for editing Lisp code (and everything
else) is Emacs (most of which is written in its own Lisp dialect),
either GNU Emacs (http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) or XEmacs
(http://www.xemacs.org). On Windows, I personally tend to prefer
XEmacs or a "distribution" of GNU Emacs made available by the TEI
Consortium (http://www.tei-c.org/Software, somewhat hidden in the "TEI
customizations" section), but this is a religious issue. Emacs comes
with a special "Lisp mode" out of the box, an even better interface is
called ILisp (download at http://sourceforge.net/projects/ilisp, maybe
there is a better link for it). It takes some time to get comfortable
with Emacs, however�, so you might not want to learn it right know, if
you are already busy learning other stuff like Lisp itself.
Regards
Henrik
� Mostly because of unusual keybindings - it's older than, for
example, the keybinding conventions Windows apps use. You can of
course remap the keybindings to your pleasure. If this is the kind of
thing you like, there is something called "cua-mode" that will make it
behave more like other windows applications. Google should find
more on it, or look at http://www.emacswiki.org.
Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de> , an acolyte of Cthulu the
True God wrote:
> Emacs comes
>with a special "Lisp mode" out of the box, an even better interface is
>called ILisp (download at http://sourceforge.net/projects/ilisp, maybe
>there is a better link for it).
These days, Xemacs comes standard with the Ilisp / Inferior Lisp mode
and it sets it up correctly, which might be nice for a newcomer to The
One True Editor. But yes, Ilisp under Emacs is very nice too.