Hi,
Are there any cheap, good LISPs for novices? Cheap means < $200, good means
reasonably complete, good diagnostics, support for Window programming
comparable to a student version of MS (or other) C++, and good
documentation.
FWIW, I have the free version of LispWorks which is disappointing.
Gary
You may have a look at newLISP 8.1 from www.newLISP.org
It is not a ANSI Common Lisp, but it is small and open source.
It can use TK as a GUI, but also intergrates well in other programming
enviroments with it's DLL-modul. It comes with a complete
documentation and run's on different platforms.
Hans-Peter
"Gary Brown" <··········@charter.net> wrote in message news:<···············@corp.supernews.com>...
> Hi,
>
> Are there any cheap, good LISPs for novices? Cheap means < $200, good means
> reasonably complete, good diagnostics, support for Window programming
> comparable to a student version of MS (or other) C++, and good
> documentation.
>
> FWIW, I have the free version of LispWorks which is disappointing.
>
> Gary
Gary Brown wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are there any cheap, good LISPs for novices? Cheap means < $200, good means
> reasonably complete, good diagnostics, support for Window programming
> comparable to a student version of MS (or other) C++, and good
> documentation.
>
> FWIW, I have the free version of LispWorks which is disappointing.
If you explain why you do not like Lispworks (a highly regarded Lisp
implementation) it would make it easier to recommend something else. Or
help you with Lispworks.
Me, I much prefer AllegroCL to Lispworks. They have a trial version,
too, but buying a license is well beyond your price point.
CormanCL might be a good fit for your requirements.
kt
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
(message (Hello 'Kenny)
(you :wrote :on '(Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:52:30 GMT))
(
KT> CormanCL might be a good fit for your requirements.
afaik it's well integrated with win32, but quite low-quality - there's a lot
of bugs there, more than in other implementations 8-]
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
(prin1 "Jane dates only Lisp programmers"))
"Gary Brown" <··········@charter.net> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Are there any cheap, good LISPs for novices? Cheap means < $200, good means
> reasonably complete, good diagnostics, support for Window programming
> comparable to a student version of MS (or other) C++, and good
> documentation.
>
> FWIW, I have the free version of LispWorks which is disappointing.
Try clisp (with emacs and slime).
Cheap ($0 + cost of download).
Good as per your specifications.
Good documentation (the whole world wide web).
--
__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.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> said:
>"Gary Brown" <··········@charter.net> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Are there any cheap, good LISPs for novices? Cheap means < $200, good means
>> reasonably complete, good diagnostics, support for Window programming
>> comparable to a student version of MS (or other) C++, and good
>> documentation.
>>
>> FWIW, I have the free version of LispWorks which is disappointing.
>
>Try clisp (with emacs and slime).
>Cheap ($0 + cost of download).
>Good as per your specifications.
>Good documentation (the whole world wide web).
In what manner does it support Windows programming?
> >"Gary Brown" <··········@charter.net> writes:
> >
> >> FWIW, I have the free version of LispWorks which is disappointing.
Mind if I ask in what way you find it disappointing? I've been using it
quite extensively for a while now and love it. I'm just on the verge of
purchasing a license, so before I do, I'd like to know what
functionality you feel is missing or lacking?
Jeff
"Jeff" <···@nospam.insightbb.com> writes:
>> >"Gary Brown" <··········@charter.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> FWIW, I have the free version of LispWorks which is
>> >> disappointing.
>
> Mind if I ask in what way you find it disappointing? I've been using
> it quite extensively for a while now and love it. I'm just on the
> verge of purchasing a license, so before I do, I'd like to know what
> functionality you feel is missing or lacking?
I tried out the trial version a while back--maybe like a year ago. It
came with three different versions of motif libraries which were for
the IDE. The first time I tried to run the environment, it wouldn't
work because there was a problem with loading the default version of
the motif library. I was totally stumped at the time... what a great
first impression of a commercial lisp environment I thought. So i
found a place to change which motif library to use and I changed it to
another version. It loaded the IDE finally, but it was a terrible
looking and the fonts were pretty much unreadable. Windows apps
running under wine feel more in touch with the native
environment. Well, anyways, the thing crashed like after a minute of
use and clicking through the tabs (probably related to the motif
library). The problem was easily reproduced and made the IDE totally
useless. To top it off, I tried emailing tech support and I never got
a reply. It was a year ago, and although I never planned to do
anything serious with it, the fact that I couldn't get it to work set
a bad impression.
adam connor <···················@mail.com> writes:
> >Try clisp (with emacs and slime).
> >Cheap ($0 + cost of download).
> >Good as per your specifications.
> >Good documentation (the whole world wide web).
> In what manner does it support Windows programming?
It runs on Microsoft Windows.
--
__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.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message news:<··············@thalassa.informatimago.com>...
> adam connor <···················@mail.com> writes:
> > >Try clisp (with emacs and slime).
> > >Cheap ($0 + cost of download).
> > >Good as per your specifications.
> > >Good documentation (the whole world wide web).
> > In what manner does it support Windows programming?
>
> It runs on Microsoft Windows.
From my *vague* investigations it only appears to run on Windoze under
Cygwin.
Is this right ?
Can it compile native windows code ?
Does it come with a set of bindings to a windows GUI (like Tk) that
can produce native windoze code ?
I'm currently a python coder and looking to expand my coding skills.
Many python 'gurus' that I respect say that Lisp is a great language
and well worth the effort to learn - and that my coding skills in
general will benefit.
I'm not prepared to switch over to Linux (I'm sure I make myself flame
bait by saying this) - but I don't mind running a compiler under
cygwin if the target code will run on native windows.
Regards,
Fuzzy
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/atlantibots/pythonutils.html
> * Michael Foord <········@tznvy.pbz> [2004-08-17 01:40:59 -0700]:
>
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message news:<··············@thalassa.informatimago.com>...
>> adam connor <···················@mail.com> writes:
>> > >Try clisp (with emacs and slime).
>> > >Cheap ($0 + cost of download).
>> > >Good as per your specifications.
>> > >Good documentation (the whole world wide web).
>> > In what manner does it support Windows programming?
>>
>> It runs on Microsoft Windows.
>
> From my *vague* investigations it only appears to run on Windoze under
> Cygwin.
CLISP runs both with and without Cygwin.
I suggest that you download and install a binary windows distribution
from sf.net.
> Can it compile native windows code ?
CLISP compiles to platform-independent bytecodes (i.e., you can compile
your Lisp code on linux and run it on windows.)
> Does it come with a set of bindings to a windows GUI (like Tk) that
> can produce native windoze code ?
No.
However CLISP comes with a very high-level FFI which can be used to
interface to win32. See clisp/modules/bindings/win32/ in the source
distribution for examples.
> I'm currently a python coder and looking to expand my coding skills.
> Many python 'gurus' that I respect say that Lisp is a great language
> and well worth the effort to learn - and that my coding skills in
> general will benefit.
indeed.
Note however that re-writing a "hello world" GUI in yet another language
might not necessarily affect your "coding skills" (but what do I know?)
--
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>
main(a){a="main(a){a=%c%s%c;printf(a,34,a,34);}";printf(a,34,a,34);}
[snip..]
> >> It runs on Microsoft Windows.
> >
> > From my *vague* investigations it only appears to run on Windoze under
> > Cygwin.
>
> CLISP runs both with and without Cygwin.
> I suggest that you download and install a binary windows distribution
> from sf.net.
>
Thanks for your reply Sam,
I was looking at sf.net and it wasn't immediately obvious which
package was the right one.
> > Can it compile native windows code ?
>
> CLISP compiles to platform-independent bytecodes (i.e., you can compile
> your Lisp code on linux and run it on windows.)
>
Oh right. So effectively it's an interpreted language.
Are there versions of Common Lisp that compile to native code ? Or is
that not realistic given the nature of Lisp ?
Do you know how GCL compares to other lanaguages in speed (e.g. python, C)... ?
GCL is a command line tool right ? It will compile (to bytecode) and
run Lisp programs. I'll need an IDE as well.. hmm... I wonder if there
is a Lisp mode for ultraedit or Komodo.....
> > Does it come with a set of bindings to a windows GUI (like Tk) that
> > can produce native windoze code ?
>
> No.
> However CLISP comes with a very high-level FFI which can be used to
> interface to win32. See clisp/modules/bindings/win32/ in the source
> distribution for examples.
>
Hmm... I've not yet programmed with the windows API - but high level
sounds good.....
> > I'm currently a python coder and looking to expand my coding skills.
> > Many python 'gurus' that I respect say that Lisp is a great language
> > and well worth the effort to learn - and that my coding skills in
> > general will benefit.
>
> indeed.
>
> Note however that re-writing a "hello world" GUI in yet another language
> might not necessarily affect your "coding skills" (but what do I know?)
>
I'm far more interested in 'learning lisp' than having a GUI on my
programs. It's just that to realistically learn it I'll need to find a
project to which Lisp is suited.... and without a UI (whether a
gooey-UI or not) that limits the choice.
From what I've heard the 'philosophy of Lisp' is what will make me a
better coder - not just being able to hack the same stuff in another
language.
In actual fact a binding to Tk/Tcl would be most suitable as not only
is it cross-platform... but that's the *only* GUI package I have any
experience of.
Next favourite of course is wxWidgets or native windows......
Can you recommend any resources for starting with Lisp - online is
favourite... but I'm not averse to investing in some paper........
Thanks
Fuzzy
> --
> 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>
> main(a){a="main(a){a=%c%s%c;printf(a,34,a,34);}";printf(a,34,a,34);}
>
--
http://www.Voidspace.org.uk
The Place where headspace meets cyberspace. Online resource site -
covering science, technology, computing, cyberpunk, psychology,
spirituality, fiction and more.
---
http://www.Voidspace.org.uk/atlantibots/pythonutils.html
Python utilities, modules and apps.
Including Nanagram, Dirwatcher and more.
---
http://www.fuchsiashockz.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/void-shockz
---
Everyone has talent. What is rare is the courage to follow talent
to the dark place where it leads. -Erica Jong
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy.
-Milan Kundera
> * Michael Foord <········@tznvy.pbz> [2004-08-18 06:20:13 -0700]:
>
> I was looking at sf.net and it wasn't immediately obvious which
> package was the right one.
pick the first distribution with "win32" in the name:
clisp-2.33.1-win32.zip
>> > Can it compile native windows code ?
>>
>> CLISP compiles to platform-independent bytecodes (i.e., you can compile
>> your Lisp code on linux and run it on windows.)
>
> Oh right. So effectively it's an interpreted language.
as Pascal has already pointed out,
a _language_ is not "compiled" or "interpreted".
> Are there versions of Common Lisp that compile to native code ? Or is
> that not realistic given the nature of Lisp ?
Your obsession with native code compilation does not make sense.
CLISP is fast enough for most application.
I use it for my work and I am quite satisfied.
--
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>
Yeah, yeah, I love cats too... wanna trade recipes?
On 2004-08-18 15:57:59, Sam Steingold wrote:
> Your obsession with native code compilation does not make sense.
> CLISP is fast enough for most application.
> I use it for my work and I am quite satisfied.
Wasn't Paul Graham using CLISP, too?
Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> wrote in message news:<··················@parsec.no-spoon.de>...
> On 2004-08-18 15:57:59, Sam Steingold wrote:
>
> > Your obsession with native code compilation does not make sense.
> > CLISP is fast enough for most application.
> > I use it for my work and I am quite satisfied.
>
> Wasn't Paul Graham using CLISP, too?
At least that's what he says he uses himself,
and one implementaion he recommends :-)
(http://www.paulgraham.com/lispfaq1.html)
sp
Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> wrote:
> On 2004-08-18 15:57:59, Sam Steingold wrote:
>
>> Your obsession with native code compilation does not make sense.
>> CLISP is fast enough for most application.
>> I use it for my work and I am quite satisfied.
>
> Wasn't Paul Graham using CLISP, too?
Yup, he sad so. But probably not on 'Windoze'.
--
,,
\../ / <<< The LISP Effect
|_\\ _==__
__ | |bb| | _________________________________________________
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Schilling <······@yahoo.de> writes:
Thomas> Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> wrote:
>> On 2004-08-18 15:57:59, Sam Steingold wrote:
>>> Your obsession with native code compilation does not make
>>> sense. CLISP is fast enough for most application. I use it
>>> for my work and I am quite satisfied.
>> Wasn't Paul Graham using CLISP, too?
Thomas> Yup, he sad so. But probably not on 'Windoze'.
I believe it was one of the BSD variants he mentions in "Hackers and
Painters", though I forget which one.
On 18 Aug 2004 06:20:13 -0700, ········@gmail.com (Michael Foord) wrote:
> Oh right. So effectively it's an interpreted language. Are there
> versions of Common Lisp that compile to native code ? Or is that not
> realistic given the nature of Lisp ?
Almost all Common Lisp implementations compile to native code, some
don't even have an interpreter. CLISP is an exception.
> Do you know how GCL compares to other lanaguages in speed
> (e.g. python, C)... ?
>
> GCL is a command line tool right ? It will compile (to bytecode) and
> run Lisp programs.
I think you're confusing GCL ("GNU Common LISP") and CLISP ("GNU
CLISP") here. These are actually two different CL ("Common Lisp")
implementations.
> I'll need an IDE as well.. hmm... I wonder if there is a Lisp mode
> for ultraedit or Komodo.....
Your best bet for CLISP is to use SLIME:
<http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/>
<http://home.comcast.net/~bc19191/blog/040704.html>
<http://www.cliki.net/Slime>
It offers much more features than "static" editors like UltraEdit can.
> Hmm... I've not yet programmed with the windows API - but high level
> sounds good.....
Read the famous Petzold book and then something like this:
<http://cl-cookbook.sourceforge.net/win32.html>
> I'm far more interested in 'learning lisp' than having a GUI on my
> programs.
If you're interesting in learning you should check out the trial
versions of the commercial CL implementations because they already
come with a full IDE. My recommendation would be the one from Xanalys
(first link below) but YMMV:
<http://www.lispworks.com/>
<http://www.franz.com/>
<http://www.cormanlisp.com/>
> In actual fact a binding to Tk/Tcl would be most suitable as not
> only is it cross-platform... but that's the *only* GUI package I
> have any experience of.
<http://www.peter-herth.de/ltk/>
> Can you recommend any resources for starting with Lisp - online is
> favourite... but I'm not averse to investing in some paper........
<http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/>
<http://www.norvig.com/paip.html>
PAIP is a great book for learning CL even if you're not interested in
AI.
HTH,
Edi.
--
"Lisp doesn't look any deader than usual to me."
(David Thornley, reply to a question older than most languages)
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
········@gmail.com (Michael Foord) writes:
> > CLISP compiles to platform-independent bytecodes (i.e., you can compile
> > your Lisp code on linux and run it on windows.)
>
> Oh right. So effectively it's an interpreted language.
This is WRONG on so many levels!
A language IS NOT compiled or interpreted!
Only implementations are compilers or interpreters.
clisp is not an interpreter.
clisp contains an interpreter AND a compiler.
When you compile Common-Lisp programs with clisp, you get some binary
native code like with any other compilers.
Unfortunately, no chip maker ever though of the opportunity to build a
microprocessor to execute this native code.
Happily, the clisp developers provide us with a virtual machine to
execute this native code.
Java does this exactly the same way (I bet they copied on clisp :-)
> Are there versions of Common Lisp that compile to native code ?
What native code?
> Or is that not realistic given the nature of Lisp ?
Already, clisp does it so I'd say it's quite realistic.
> Do you know how GCL compares to other lanaguages in speed
> (e.g. python, C)... ?
We've not found yet a benchmark where a Common-Lisp implementation was
not between 0.5 and 2 times as fast as a C implementation.
> GCL is a command line tool right ?
If you mean that it has no GUI, yes.
> It will compile (to bytecode) and run Lisp programs.
No. GCL compiles to C, which in turns compiles to native code.
It happens that on Intel processors, the native code is a bytecode.
But if you used GCL on a 680x0, the native coude would be a wordcode.
> I'll need an IDE as well.. hmm... I wonder if there
> is a Lisp mode for ultraedit or Komodo.....
I don't know but there are several lisp mode for emacs, and emacs is
the MOST Integrated Development Enviroment I know.
> Can you recommend any resources for starting with Lisp - online is
> favourite... but I'm not averse to investing in some paper........
http://www.cliki.net/
> Fuzzy
Indeed.
--
__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.
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: Windoze Lisp [was Re: Cheap, Good Lisps For Novices]
Date:
Message-ID: <opscvdlv1hpqzri1@mjolner.upc.no>
I have run clisp under windows without cygwin. You don't have a native
windows interface
(to my knowlege) but you could use the tk (which altso runs under windows)
interface.
On 17 Aug 2004 01:40:59 -0700, Michael Foord <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:<··············@thalassa.informatimago.com>...
>> adam connor <···················@mail.com> writes:
>> > >Try clisp (with emacs and slime).
>> > >Cheap ($0 + cost of download).
>> > >Good as per your specifications.
>> > >Good documentation (the whole world wide web).
>> > In what manner does it support Windows programming?
>>
>> It runs on Microsoft Windows.
>
> From my *vague* investigations it only appears to run on Windoze under
> Cygwin.
> Is this right ?
> Can it compile native windows code ?
>
> Does it come with a set of bindings to a windows GUI (like Tk) that
> can produce native windoze code ?
>
> I'm currently a python coder and looking to expand my coding skills.
> Many python 'gurus' that I respect say that Lisp is a great language
> and well worth the effort to learn - and that my coding skills in
> general will benefit.
>
> I'm not prepared to switch over to Linux (I'm sure I make myself flame
> bait by saying this) - but I don't mind running a compiler under
> cygwin if the target code will run on native windows.
>
> Regards,
>
> Fuzzy
>
> http://www.voidspace.org.uk/atlantibots/pythonutils.html
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> wrote in message news:<················@mjolner.upc.no>...
> I have run clisp under windows without cygwin. You don't have a native
> windows interface
> (to my knowlege) but you could use the tk (which altso runs under windows)
> interface.
>
Cool (thanks to all those who answered).
So clisp is a compiler (to bytecode) and runtime ? I'll need an IDE to
help me code for it - and also to check out the Tk/Tcl bindings......
Hmmm..... and also find a decent tutorial to start with.
Good resources are a little hard to find....
Regards,
Fuzzy
> On 17 Aug 2004 01:40:59 -0700, Michael Foord <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> > news:<··············@thalassa.informatimago.com>...
> >> adam connor <···················@mail.com> writes:
> >> > >Try clisp (with emacs and slime).
> >> > >Cheap ($0 + cost of download).
> >> > >Good as per your specifications.
> >> > >Good documentation (the whole world wide web).
> >> > In what manner does it support Windows programming?
> >>
> >> It runs on Microsoft Windows.
> >
> > From my *vague* investigations it only appears to run on Windoze under
> > Cygwin.
> > Is this right ?
> > Can it compile native windows code ?
> >
> > Does it come with a set of bindings to a windows GUI (like Tk) that
> > can produce native windoze code ?
> >
> > I'm currently a python coder and looking to expand my coding skills.
> > Many python 'gurus' that I respect say that Lisp is a great language
> > and well worth the effort to learn - and that my coding skills in
> > general will benefit.
> >
> > I'm not prepared to switch over to Linux (I'm sure I make myself flame
> > bait by saying this) - but I don't mind running a compiler under
> > cygwin if the target code will run on native windows.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Fuzzy
> >
> > http://www.voidspace.org.uk/atlantibots/pythonutils.html
From: Matthew Danish
Subject: Re: Windoze Lisp [was Re: Cheap, Good Lisps For Novices]
Date:
Message-ID: <20040820174706.GA8087@mapcar.org>
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:16:02AM -0700, Michael Foord wrote:
> Cool (thanks to all those who answered).
> So clisp is a compiler (to bytecode) and runtime ? I'll need an IDE to
> help me code for it - and also to check out the Tk/Tcl bindings......
You can check out "Lisp in a Box" which has support for CLISP in
Windows. It packages Emacs+SLIME and can interface to a Lisp to form an
IDE. It comes as Windows-installer packages, and handles all the setup.
http://www.common-lisp.net/project/lispbox
--
;;;; Matthew Danish -- user: mrd domain: cmu.edu
;;;; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
Greetings!
········@gmail.com (Michael Foord) writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message news:<··············@thalassa.informatimago.com>...
> > adam connor <···················@mail.com> writes:
> > > >Try clisp (with emacs and slime).
> > > >Cheap ($0 + cost of download).
> > > >Good as per your specifications.
> > > >Good documentation (the whole world wide web).
> > > In what manner does it support Windows programming?
> >
> > It runs on Microsoft Windows.
>
> From my *vague* investigations it only appears to run on Windoze under
> Cygwin.
>
> Is this right ?
> Can it compile native windows code ?
>
GCL compiles to native code on Windoze using mingw, i.e. not cygwin.
There is also a tk binding, but I think it may need some work on
Windoze at the moment.
Take care,
> Does it come with a set of bindings to a windows GUI (like Tk) that
> can produce native windoze code ?
>
> I'm currently a python coder and looking to expand my coding skills.
> Many python 'gurus' that I respect say that Lisp is a great language
> and well worth the effort to learn - and that my coding skills in
> general will benefit.
>
> I'm not prepared to switch over to Linux (I'm sure I make myself flame
> bait by saying this) - but I don't mind running a compiler under
> cygwin if the target code will run on native windows.
>
> Regards,
>
> Fuzzy
>
> http://www.voidspace.org.uk/atlantibots/pythonutils.html
--
Camm Maguire ····@enhanced.com
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
Michael Foord wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message news:<··············@thalassa.informatimago.com>...
>
>>adam connor <···················@mail.com> writes:
>>
>>>>Try clisp (with emacs and slime).
>>>>Cheap ($0 + cost of download).
>>>>Good as per your specifications.
>>>>Good documentation (the whole world wide web).
>>>
>>>In what manner does it support Windows programming?
>>
>>It runs on Microsoft Windows.
>
>
> From my *vague* investigations it only appears to run on Windoze under
> Cygwin.
>
> Is this right ?
maybe to build it (?), but you can get a binary install.
> Can it compile native windows code ?
Do you mean compile /to/ native? clisp compiles to bytecodes, which may
not matter for a learning exercise.
>
> Does it come with a set of bindings to a windows GUI (like Tk) that
> can produce native windoze code ?
AllegroCL Trial comes with a decent set of bindings. CormanCL has a
fuller set, but the freebee IDE runs out after 30days (and AllegroCL is
a much better IDE). AllegroCL also has its own GUI framework which
thinly wraps native win32 widgets, so you do not need to mess with win32
directly (but you can mix and match).
The Lispworks freebee is cool, too, but I do not know what win32
bindings it ships with. And it too has its own gui framework, which most
folks use.
>
> I'm currently a python coder and looking to expand my coding skills.
> Many python 'gurus' that I respect say that Lisp is a great language
> and well worth the effort to learn - and that my coding skills in
> general will benefit.
>
> I'm not prepared to switch over to Linux (I'm sure I make myself flame
> bait by saying this) - but I don't mind running a compiler under
> cygwin if the target code will run on native windows.
>
> Regards,
>
> Fuzzy
>
> http://www.voidspace.org.uk/atlantibots/pythonutils.html
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Greetings! GCL is supported on Windows, and carries maxima, acl2, and
axiom (preliminary) there. Documentation could use some improvement.
Free and fast, compiling to native machine code via (included) gcc.
Take care,
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> "Gary Brown" <··········@charter.net> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are there any cheap, good LISPs for novices? Cheap means < $200, good means
> > reasonably complete, good diagnostics, support for Window programming
> > comparable to a student version of MS (or other) C++, and good
> > documentation.
> >
> > FWIW, I have the free version of LispWorks which is disappointing.
>
> Try clisp (with emacs and slime).
> Cheap ($0 + cost of download).
> Good as per your specifications.
> Good documentation (the whole world wide web).
>
> --
> __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.
--
Camm Maguire ····@enhanced.com
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
The cheapest commercial lisp around is Corman lisp. If you use windows.
For unix there is CMUCL which is free.
Allegro CL and Liquid CL are more expensive but are more complete.
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:38:22 -0400, Gary Brown <··········@charter.net>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are there any cheap, good LISPs for novices? Cheap means < $200, good
> means
> reasonably complete, good diagnostics, support for Window programming
> comparable to a student version of MS (or other) C++, and good
> documentation.
>
> FWIW, I have the free version of LispWorks which is disappointing.
>
> Gary
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/