OK, it was hell on wheels, but the Universal (RSN) CL gui "Cells Inside"
Cello now runs on a second platform, LW/win32. Joining ACL/win32.
Sounds boring, doesn't it? Well, proof-of-concept and all that.
Next step... I do not know. UPS tracking informs me my Knoppix CD
arrives today. Hey, let's vote!
Should Cello be ported next to:
Corman Lisp
CLisp/win32
CMUCL+CLX+X11
Mac OS X
Other______________
ballots here or by email welcome.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Cells let us walk, talk, think, make love and realize
the bath water is cold." -- Lorraine Lee Cudmore
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Hey, let's vote!
I vote for one of these two, with no particular preference between
them:
> CMUCL+CLX+X11
> Mac OS X
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
> * In message <················@nyc.rr.com>
> * On the subject of "ANNC: Cello Colonizes LW"
> * Sent on Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:07:50 GMT
> * Honorable Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> Should Cello be ported next to:
>
> CLisp/win32
> CMUCL+CLX+X11
CLISP also runs CLX.
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat8 GNU/Linux
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html>
A poet who reads his verse in public may have other nasty habits.
Sam Steingold wrote:
>>* In message <················@nyc.rr.com>
>>* On the subject of "ANNC: Cello Colonizes LW"
>>* Sent on Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:07:50 GMT
>>* Honorable Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>Should Cello be ported next to:
>>
>>CLisp/win32
>>CMUCL+CLX+X11
>
>
> CLISP also runs CLX.
Cool. Is that your vote or is that just a clarification?
I offered CLisp/win32 because part of me said finish the win32 CL
implementations so I could avoid the new X learning curve, just pick up
the low-hanging fruit of other win32 CLs. But i would still have to deal
with their callback differences, and I have pretty much made up my mind
to redo FreeGlut in CL and eliminate callbacks from C, so it would be a
bit of a waste (unless I wanted to start porting FG to CL first).
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Cells let us walk, talk, think, make love and realize
the bath water is cold." -- Lorraine Lee Cudmore
> * In message <················@nyc.rr.com>
> * On the subject of "Re: ANNC: Cello Colonizes LW"
> * Sent on Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:28:09 GMT
> * Honorable Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> Sam Steingold wrote:
> >>* Honorable Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> >>CLisp/win32
> >>CMUCL+CLX+X11
> > CLISP also runs CLX.
> Cool. Is that your vote or is that just a clarification?
It's my vote for CLISP/woe32 first and then CLX (all of CMUCL, GCL, SBCL
and CLISP) later.
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat8 GNU/Linux
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html>
char*a="char*a=%c%s%c;main(){printf(a,34,a,34);}";main(){printf(a,34,a,34);}
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> It's my vote for CLISP/woe32 first and then CLX (all of CMUCL, GCL, SBCL
> and CLISP) later.
There's an OpenMCL port of CLX too (actually there are two, or maybe
three). Admittedly you need an X server somewhere as well, which
you're marginally more likely to have on Linux PPC than OSX, but it's
a start.
-dan
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> OK, it was hell on wheels, but the Universal (RSN) CL gui "Cells
> Inside" Cello now runs on a second platform, LW/win32. Joining
> ACL/win32.
>
> Sounds boring, doesn't it? Well, proof-of-concept and all that.
>
> Next step... I do not know. UPS tracking informs me my Knoppix CD
> arrives today. Hey, let's vote!
>
> Should Cello be ported next to:
>
> Corman Lisp
> CLisp/win32
> CMUCL+CLX+X11
> Mac OS X
> Other______________
>
> ballots here or by email welcome.
I vote CMUCL+CLX+X11. For weighting my vote my (for now) status as
hobbyist would maybe pull down.
On the plus side (for my vote) is that I have a project in mind which
would benefit from cells and would need a GUI. Also the CMUCL seems to
be getting some significant speedups in the CLOS department for the
next release. I don't know whether CLisp could handle Cello
performance-wise.
--
H�kon Alstadheim, hjemmepappa.
On 12 Feb 2003 21:06:06 +0100, ······@online.no (H�kon Alstadheim) wrote:
> next release. I don't know whether CLisp could handle Cello
> performance-wise.
CLISP's performance is acceptable with Garnet, at least with NCLX.
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
H�kon Alstadheim wrote:
> I vote CMUCL+CLX+X11.
Underway. Kinda. I am translating FreeGlut (FG) from C to CL, starting
with the win32 variant. No more stinkin' callbacks from C. Probably
easier to do native widgets down the road. FG-CL will go thru CLX, so
with luck once I have FG-CL(win32) working the FG-CL(x11) variant will
be manageable. Then etc etc etc...
> On the plus side (for my vote) is that I have a project in mind which
> would benefit from cells and would need a GUI.
How much time do I have? A user to support would be fun.
> Also the CMUCL seems to
> be getting some significant speedups in the CLOS department for the
> next release. I don't know whether CLisp could handle Cello
> performance-wise.
Yes, Cello does lean heavily on CLOS. But I eliminated the metaclass bit
which used to whack CLOS slot-value optimizations, so the only
bottleneck is make-instance. Cells probably could be made to work with
defstruct if it ever came down to it (ie, billyuns and billyuns of
little instances).
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Cells let us walk, talk, think, make love and realize
the bath water is cold." -- Lorraine Lee Cudmore
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> H�kon Alstadheim wrote:
> > I vote CMUCL+CLX+X11.
>
> Underway. Kinda. I am translating FreeGlut (FG) from C to CL, starting
> with the win32 variant. No more stinkin' callbacks from C. Probably
> easier to do native widgets down the road. FG-CL will go thru CLX, so
> with luck once I have FG-CL(win32) working the FG-CL(x11) variant will
> be manageable. Then etc etc etc...
>
> > On the plus side (for my vote) is that I have a project in mind which
> > would benefit from cells and would need a GUI.
>
> How much time do I have? A user to support would be fun.
My attention span is good and I have no deadline. So far I'm only at
the stage where I'm probing the quality of the resources (net + local
data) that I need, and starting some text only prototypes of the
various parts. For sticking it together and propagating updates in
real-time and displaying stuff I would love to use cells/cello. It
will be a small project. The end product would help me keep my phone
bill under control (from published phone-rates) and gather info (from
online phone-books) on missed incoming calls, so it is not a project I
am likely to abandon. Hopefully cello will enable my wife to use it
aswell. The current state of the Linux-art in this area is screaming
for a lisp solution.
> > Also the CMUCL seems to be getting some significant speedups in
> > the CLOS department for the next release. I don't know whether
> > CLisp could handle Cello performance-wise.
>
> Yes, Cello does lean heavily on CLOS. But I eliminated the metaclass
> bit which used to whack CLOS slot-value optimizations,
Well, good thing then that CMUCL is finally getting some serious
slot-value optimisations. I haven't seen any reports on make-instance
performance for CMUCL though. Others would know more.
> so the only bottleneck is make-instance. Cells probably could be
> made to work with defstruct if it ever came down to it (ie, billyuns
> and billyuns of little instances).
--
H�kon Alstadheim, hjemmepappa.
······@online.no (H�kon Alstadheim) writes:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> > H�kon Alstadheim wrote:
> > > Also the CMUCL seems to be getting some significant speedups in
> > > the CLOS department for the next release. I don't know whether
> > > CLisp could handle Cello performance-wise.
> >
> > Yes, Cello does lean heavily on CLOS. But I eliminated the metaclass
> > bit which used to whack CLOS slot-value optimizations,
>
> Well, good thing then that CMUCL is finally getting some serious
> slot-value optimisations. I haven't seen any reports on make-instance
> performance for CMUCL though. Others would know more.
It's certainly on the cards. A new optimization of make-instance for
constant keyword initargs is available from the gerds-pcl tarballs in
cmucl's experimental/ directory, and has been running in SBCL for
about two months. No complaints have been received :)
Cheers,
Christophe
--
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> OK, it was hell on wheels, but the Universal (RSN) CL gui "Cells
> Inside" Cello now runs on a second platform, LW/win32. Joining
> ACL/win32.
>
>
> Sounds boring, doesn't it? Well, proof-of-concept and all that.
>
> Next step... I do not know. UPS tracking informs me my Knoppix CD
> arrives today. Hey, let's vote!
>
>
> Should Cello be ported next to:
>
> Corman Lisp
> CLisp/win32
> CMUCL+CLX+X11
> Mac OS X
> Other______________
>
> ballots here or by email welcome.
If you're goal is to be universal, I'd suggest going for a non-Windows
platform. (Note, I'm biased as I run Linux but my advice applies just
as well if you choose OS X.) You'll almost certainly run into more
interesting portability problems if you jump to a point farther away
in platform-space from where you are now. Whereas if you do another
Windows port it'll be easy but then someday when you leave windows you
may well discover some wrinkle that forces you to change a bunch of
stuff. Better to find those wrinkles now. So I'd vote for any CLX
based impl. or MCL with whatever bindings they have to Carbon.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel
·····@javamonkey.com
Peter Seibel wrote:
> You'll almost certainly run into more
> interesting portability problems if you jump to a point farther away
> in platform-space ...
Ahhhh, the old rip-the-bandage-off-fast theory. I like it.
Well, that's what I'm doing, making the HyperLeap to a diff OS, CL, IDE,
Graphics layer, Window manager, FFI, and even C compiler if I stick with
FreeGlut.
I'm gonna get killed.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Cells let us walk, talk, think, make love and realize
the bath water is cold." -- Lorraine Lee Cudmore
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<··············@nyc.rr.com>...
>
> I'm gonna get killed.
Truly. A regular high-wire act.
Go for OS X.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:07:50 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Should Cello be ported next to:
[...]
> CMUCL+CLX+X11
My vote.
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>