I have undertaken programming a rather large application and I think I
have to upgrade to a real Lisp implementation. Not only that, but
upgrade to a Linux machine as well.
So, there is the GNU Common Lisp at the GNU site (GCL) and at the
sourceforge (and also at GNU) they have CLISP. Are these the same
thing? If not which one is better? Should I not use either of them?
I'd like to have access to X-windows through Lisp. Apparently the two
packages use XGCL and CLX respectively. How do they stand with respect
to CLOS? Must it be present?
Furthermore, I've heard of people using a Java X-Windows simulating
applet called WeirdX on top of XGCL. Will it work on top of any
X-Windows interface? Is it garbage anyway?
There are a few things I'm looking for. To start with, it would be
nice to have something that doesn't make a mess of a machine when it
is installed. And I imagine portability is only going to be a problem
with X-windows functions and CLX is apparently a 'standard'. But if
XGCL is simply better, I'd rather use that.
Does anybody have any comparative experience with any of these
packages? I'd appreciate any insights.
Sincerely,
-Todd
Todd Pierce <···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have undertaken programming a rather large application and I think I
> have to upgrade to a real Lisp implementation. Not only that, but
> upgrade to a Linux machine as well.
I'd recommend SBCL (or CMUCL; the choise is largely a matter of taste) on
Linux unless you have specialized requirements that something else caters
to better.
http://www.sbcl.org
http://www.cons.org/cmucl/
> I'd like to have access to X-windows through Lisp. Apparently the two
> packages use XGCL and CLX respectively. How do they stand with respect
> to CLOS? Must it be present?
For X access with SBCL/CMUCL I'd use Portable CLX.
http://www.cliki.net/clx
http://ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/lisp/sbcl/clx_0.5.4.tar.gz
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus "Not as clumsy or random as a C++ or Java.
An elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
In article <····························@posting.google.com>, Todd Pierce wrote:
> I have undertaken programming a rather large application and I think I
> have to upgrade to a real Lisp implementation. Not only that, but
> upgrade to a Linux machine as well.
>
> So, there is the GNU Common Lisp at the GNU site (GCL) and at the
> sourceforge (and also at GNU) they have CLISP. Are these the same
> thing? If not which one is better? Should I not use either of them?
They are not the same thing. CLISP compiles the common lisp to bytecode
(it's own bytecode, not java bytecode) or interprets the code directly,
while GCL uses "the system C compiler" to produce code according to
their webpages. Currently GCL is less standard compliant than CLISP.
Both of them is portable to many systems.
As someone other have mentioned, take a look at CMUCL or SBCL. If you
consider commercial software also take a look at the commercial common lisp
products, like Allegro (www.franz.com) or Lispworks (www.lispworks.com).
Both of them have limited trial versions you can try out.
Personally I'm using CMUCL.
>
> I'd like to have access to X-windows through Lisp. Apparently the two
> packages use XGCL and CLX respectively. How do they stand with respect
> to CLOS? Must it be present?
>
> Furthermore, I've heard of people using a Java X-Windows simulating
> applet called WeirdX on top of XGCL. Will it work on top of any
> X-Windows interface? Is it garbage anyway?
>
> There are a few things I'm looking for. To start with, it would be
> nice to have something that doesn't make a mess of a machine when it
> is installed. And I imagine portability is only going to be a problem
> with X-windows functions and CLX is apparently a 'standard'. But if
> XGCL is simply better, I'd rather use that.
>
> Does anybody have any comparative experience with any of these
> packages? I'd appreciate any insights.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> -Todd
--
--
Gisle S�lensminde
Computational biology unit, University of Bergen, Norway
Email: ·····@cbu.uib.no
Gee Whiz Guys,
Thanks. I'm definitely leaning toward the Steel Base Lisp. I'm
leaning toward that and the CLX package.
You have to admit, it's funny that some programmers would have to move
in and clean up the code left over by one of our finest Universities.
Since my application is not that demanding, I think something public
domain like this will work perfectly.
However, if anybody out there has experience with WeirdX, I'm still
all ears.
-T
Greetings!
···········@hotmail.com (Todd Pierce) writes:
> I have undertaken programming a rather large application and I think I
> have to upgrade to a real Lisp implementation. Not only that, but
> upgrade to a Linux machine as well.
>
> So, there is the GNU Common Lisp at the GNU site (GCL) and at the
> sourceforge (and also at GNU) they have CLISP. Are these the same
> thing? If not which one is better? Should I not use either of them?
>
GCL compiles to native machine code and is thus usually quite a bit
faster than CLISP. It is less ANSI compliant at present however.
GCL is the official common lisp of the GNU project.
> I'd like to have access to X-windows through Lisp. Apparently the two
> packages use XGCL and CLX respectively. How do they stand with respect
> to CLOS? Must it be present?
>
xgcl does not require clos. I believe clx does. It compiles out of
the box on gcl last time I checked using the ansi work-in-progress
build.
> Furthermore, I've heard of people using a Java X-Windows simulating
> applet called WeirdX on top of XGCL. Will it work on top of any
> X-Windows interface? Is it garbage anyway?
>
Don't know about this, but Mike Thomas has a japi interface running
with gcl (on windows at least).
> There are a few things I'm looking for. To start with, it would be
> nice to have something that doesn't make a mess of a machine when it
> is installed. And I imagine portability is only going to be a problem
> with X-windows functions and CLX is apparently a 'standard'. But if
> XGCL is simply better, I'd rather use that.
>
xgcl is used by real people in their work at utexas. Try searching
for 'Novak' there.
> Does anybody have any comparative experience with any of these
> packages? I'd appreciate any insights.
>
Don't forget gcl-tk, a lisp tcl/tk interface in GCL. In general, I
have little experience with lisp graphics, but GCL is in heavy use in
a variety of situations with maxima, acl2, axiom, and (pc)nqthm.
Take care,
> Sincerely,
>
> -Todd
--
Camm Maguire ····@enhanced.com
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
> * Camm Maguire <····@raunaprq.pbz> [2004-08-05 17:01:31 -0400]:
>
> GCL compiles to native machine code and is thus usually quite a bit
> faster than CLISP.
I have seen many benchmarks go either way.
> GCL is the official common lisp of the GNU project.
whatever that might mean :-)
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem.
Camm Maguire <····@enhanced.com> wrote:
+---------------
| ···········@hotmail.com (Todd Pierce) writes:
| > I'd like to have access to X-windows through Lisp. Apparently the two
| > packages use XGCL and CLX respectively. How do they stand with respect
| > to CLOS? Must it be present?
|
| xgcl does not require clos. I believe clx does.
+---------------
Not according to the CLX sources distributed with CMUCL. Looking in
routine "depdefs.lisp", one finds the following code which decides
whether to use CLOS or not, and if so, for which types:
(eval-when (eval compile load)
(defvar *def-clx-class-use-defclass*
#+(and cmu pcl) '(XLIB:DRAWABLE XLIB:WINDOW XLIB:PIXMAP)
#+(and cmu (not pcl)) nil
#-(or cmu) nil
"Controls whether DEF-CLX-CLASS uses DEFCLASS.
If it is a list, it is interpreted by DEF-CLX-CLASS to be a
list of type names for which DEFCLASS should be used.
If it is not a list, then DEFCLASS is always used.
If it is NIL, then DEFCLASS is never used, since NIL is the
empty list."))
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Camm Maguire <····@enhanced.com> wrote:
> GCL is the official common lisp of the GNU project.
What do you mean by this? Facts are:
- GNU clisp and GNU gcl are both part of the GNU project.
- Historically, clisp was the first Common Lisp to be released under GPL,
but gcl was the first who asked to be allowed to join the GNU project.
- Richard Stallman recommends GNU guile as extension language, not
Common Lisp.
Bruno
Greetings! My apologies -- I did not realize this might be a
controversial statement. In fact, I suppose the 'official' adjective
wrt the GNU project might be somewhat ill-defined. I based my
statement primarily on two items:
1) The name (GNU Common Lisp)
2) The fact that when Dr. Schelter died, RMS took ownership of the
process of finding another maintainer. In my discussions with him
at the time, I suggested simply letting GCL go and using CLISP as
the common lisp for GNU, but he did not want to do that. In spite
of my not knowing anything about lisp at the time and my
professions of incompetence, he 'officially' appointed me as the
new maintainer as I was basically the only one willing to try to
preserve Dr. Schelter's work. I made an inference from his
personal involvement, but I can see that it is not completely
justified.
3) As we both know, GPL licensing and being part of the GNU project
are two different things. I had no idea until this moment that
CLISP was also part of the GNU project. In keeping with what you
state, both CLISP and GCL are on the 'official' GNU cd. My
question is if this is the case, why are we not merging the
projects :-)? Duplication of effort is so wasteful.
4) GCL code is LGPL licensed, though the binaries are GPL licensed due
to third party modules typically compiled in. Surely the LGPL
status must have been in place when GCL asked to join GNU, no? Not
that it matters in the least who was first ....
5) I've seen your name in some early GCL material as co-maintainer.
What was the history here?
6) The guile recommendation issue is regrettable, as is the general
fractured state of free lisp. Just wondering if and how everyone
can pull together.
Take care,
Bruno Haible <·····@clisp.org> writes:
> Camm Maguire <····@enhanced.com> wrote:
>
> > GCL is the official common lisp of the GNU project.
>
> What do you mean by this? Facts are:
>
> - GNU clisp and GNU gcl are both part of the GNU project.
> - Historically, clisp was the first Common Lisp to be released under GPL,
> but gcl was the first who asked to be allowed to join the GNU project.
> - Richard Stallman recommends GNU guile as extension language, not
> Common Lisp.
>
> Bruno
--
Camm Maguire ····@enhanced.com
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
Gee whiz guys,
I didn't expect to start such a deeeeep conversation. Thanks for all
the info though. I'm gonna be an expert on this stuff pretty soon :)
-T
Camm Maguire wrote:
> Greetings! My apologies -- I did not realize this might be a
> controversial statement. In fact, I suppose the 'official' adjective
> wrt the GNU project might be somewhat ill-defined. I based my
> statement primarily on two items:
>
> 1) The name (GNU Common Lisp)
>
> 2) The fact that when Dr. Schelter died, RMS took ownership of the
> process of finding another maintainer. In my discussions with him
> at the time, I suggested simply letting GCL go and using CLISP as
> the common lisp for GNU, but he did not want to do that. In spite
> of my not knowing anything about lisp at the time and my
> professions of incompetence, he 'officially' appointed me as the
> new maintainer as I was basically the only one willing to try to
> preserve Dr. Schelter's work. I made an inference from his
> personal involvement, but I can see that it is not completely
> justified.
You should also know that GCL descends from AKCL which descends from KCL
(which also spawned Ibuki CL, Delphi CL, EcoLisp and ECL)
Also, you should put ANSI compliance as your TOP PRIORITY as GCL
maintaniner. All the rest should take lower priority.
>
> 3) As we both know, GPL licensing and being part of the GNU project
> are two different things. I had no idea until this moment that
> CLISP was also part of the GNU project. In keeping with what you
> state, both CLISP and GCL are on the 'official' GNU cd. My
> question is if this is the case, why are we not merging the
> projects :-)? Duplication of effort is so wasteful.
Because the code base is significantly different? I agree that
duplication of efforts is not a very good thing, but given the current
state of affairs I do not see how to go around it.
>
> 6) The guile recommendation issue is regrettable, as is the general
> fractured state of free lisp. Just wondering if and how everyone
> can pull together.
The best that can be done is to continuously remind RMS that he made a
terrible mistake with Guile. :)
Cheers
--
Marco
Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> > 6) The guile recommendation issue is regrettable, as is the general
> > fractured state of free lisp. Just wondering if and how everyone
> > can pull together.
>
> The best that can be done is to continuously remind RMS that he made a
> terrible mistake with Guile. :)
Yeah, but with Abelsson and Sussman having been or being on the board
of the FSF, I doubt they'll change their position here...
http://agia.fsf.org/associate/leadership
(Currently, Dr. Sussman is one of the FSF directors).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.
Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
[...]
> The best that can be done is to continuously remind RMS that he made
> a terrible mistake with Guile. :)
Guile doesn't seem to be taking over the world, or even the GNU world.
If a lispy extension to gdb (say) appeared, I suspect RMS wouldn't
object, even if it happened to use some non-guile version of lisp.
As far as I can tell, guile is fairly good for GNOME, but even for
that python and perl are about as good (and their interfaces better
documented). I get the impression guile isn't much more significant
than half a dozen or so alternative extension languages. Which is a
shame, in a way---a single dominant extension language could be a good
thing, and some implementation of scheme would be a reasonable choice,
IMHO. But my impression is that guile has failed, in that sense.
Camm Maguire wrote:
>
> 3) As we both know, GPL licensing and being part of the GNU project
> are two different things. I had no idea until this moment that
> CLISP was also part of the GNU project. In keeping with what you
> state, both CLISP and GCL are on the 'official' GNU cd. My
> question is if this is the case, why are we not merging the
> projects :-)? Duplication of effort is so wasteful.
>
Butting in :)
As someone hoping to use Lisp for real work someday, I like the idea of
having two free Lisps with two different mechanisms being available
(bytecode versus C code).
If you go along the combining path, I hope you only combine the parts
that are written in Lisp (if any) and not the rest.
When I get to make the choice of language, one of the things that will
make me confident about choosing CL for a project is the availability of
free CLs that all have implementations that look fundamentally different
(at least to a newbie like me).
CMUCL - generates machine code directly when sources are compiled, and
some sort of interpreter for non compiled code
CLISP - bytecode
GCL - C source code
ArmedBear Lisp - Java
Not too many other languages have these very valuable choices.
Thanks for the great work.
-Antony
Bruno Haible <·····@clisp.org> writes:
> Camm Maguire <····@enhanced.com> wrote:
>
> > GCL is the official common lisp of the GNU project.
>
> What do you mean by this? Facts are:
>
> - GNU clisp and GNU gcl are both part of the GNU project.
> - Historically, clisp was the first Common Lisp to be released under GPL,
> but gcl was the first who asked to be allowed to join the GNU project.
> - Richard Stallman recommends GNU guile as extension language, not
> Common Lisp.
What things use guile as an extension language? Once I played with
scwm and I recall it used guile. I have see nothing else.
--
Johan KULLSTAM <··········@comcast.net> sysengr