Are there Common Lisp implementations which run under the VMS operating
system? I've tried to do some research vi Google and the ALU site and I'm
not turning up very much. Given the number of other languagess which appear
to be available under VMS (Ada, COBOL, Pascal, BASIC, C, C++, etc.) it seems
only reasonable that there would be a Lisp represented there as well.
Bruce
--
·······@sdf.lonestar.org www.not-art.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
The Mouser felt a compulsive urge to take out his dagger and stab himself
in the heart. A man had to die when he saw something like that.
(Fritz Leiber)
Bruce Nagel wrote:
> Are there Common Lisp implementations which run under the VMS operating
> system? I've tried to do some research vi Google and the ALU site and I'm
> not turning up very much. Given the number of other languagess which appear
> to be available under VMS (Ada, COBOL, Pascal, BASIC, C, C++, etc.) it seems
> only reasonable that there would be a Lisp represented there as well.
If you find one and start hiring, I just might come out of retirement.
That is one sweet OS. I'd miss using EDT, tho. Well, there is always the
DCL to edit.
:)
kt
--
Home? http://tilton-technology.com
Cells? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Cello? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cello/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
Bruce Nagel escreveu:
> Are there Common Lisp implementations which run under the VMS operating
> system? I've tried to do some research vi Google and the ALU site and I'm
> not turning up very much. Given the number of other languagess which appear
> to be available under VMS (Ada, COBOL, Pascal, BASIC, C, C++, etc.) it seems
> only reasonable that there would be a Lisp represented there as well.
>
Whereas this is not to dismay you, the NEWS file for clisp has an entry
dated January, 8, 1994 saying "Remove (incomplete) support for VMS."
HTH
--
Cesar Rabak
In article <················@acm.org>, Cesar Rabak wrote:
> Whereas this is not to dismay you, the NEWS file for clisp has an entry
> dated January, 8, 1994 saying "Remove (incomplete) support for VMS."
Yes, I am aware that Clisp isn't available for VMS, but thanks. I've seen
some vague indications that GCL might be available for the VMS platform.
That's the only Common Lisp implementation I've seen even a hint of being
ported to VMS. :-/
Bruce
--
·······@sdf.lonestar.org www.not-art.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
The Mouser felt a compulsive urge to take out his dagger and stab himself
in the heart. A man had to die when he saw something like that.
(Fritz Leiber)
Bruce Nagel escreveu:
> In article <················@acm.org>, Cesar Rabak wrote:
>
>
>>Whereas this is not to dismay you, the NEWS file for clisp has an entry
>>dated January, 8, 1994 saying "Remove (incomplete) support for VMS."
>
>
> Yes, I am aware that Clisp isn't available for VMS, but thanks.
OK. Perhaps a half filled attitude: if it already worked ten years ago,
perhaps is still possible to make it work in that plattform. . .
> I've seen some vague indications that GCL might be available for the
VMS platform.
> That's the only Common Lisp implementation I've seen even a hint of being
> ported to VMS. :-/
>
Will save this, as nobody knows about the future ;-)
--
Cesar Rabak
Greetings! Just a note that we had someone working on VMS, but
haven't heard from them recently. Should be a straightforward port
which I'd be happy to assist should anyone want to take it on.
Take care,
Cesar Rabak <······@acm.org> writes:
> Bruce Nagel escreveu:
> > In article <················@acm.org>, Cesar Rabak wrote:
> >
> >> Whereas this is not to dismay you, the NEWS file for clisp has an
> >> entry dated January, 8, 1994 saying "Remove (incomplete) support
> >> for VMS."
> > Yes, I am aware that Clisp isn't available for VMS, but thanks.
>
> OK. Perhaps a half filled attitude: if it already worked ten years
> ago, perhaps is still possible to make it work in that plattform. . .
>
> > I've seen some vague indications that GCL might be available for
> the VMS platform.
>
> > That's the only Common Lisp implementation I've seen even a hint of being
> > ported to VMS. :-/
> >
>
> Will save this, as nobody knows about the future ;-)
>
> --
> Cesar Rabak
>
--
Camm Maguire ····@enhanced.com
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
Bruce Nagel <·······@xm.freeshell.org> writes:
> Yes, I am aware that Clisp isn't available for VMS, but thanks. I've seen
> some vague indications that GCL might be available for the VMS platform.
> That's the only Common Lisp implementation I've seen even a hint of being
> ported to VMS. :-/
Take a look at Poplog (http://www.poplog.org/) - it is a programming
environment with compilers for several languages including CL (although it
seems to be CLtL, not ANSI) and the Web page says that "at present Poplog runs
under VMS, Windows9X/NT and a variety of versions of the Unix operating
system".
--
With regards, Roman.
Standard disclaimer: I work for them, but I don't speak for them.
In article <······················@xm.freeshell.org>,
Bruce Nagel <·······@xm.freeshell.org> wrote:
> Are there Common Lisp implementations which run under the VMS operating
> system? I've tried to do some research vi Google and the ALU site and I'm
> not turning up very much. Given the number of other languagess which appear
> to be available under VMS (Ada, COBOL, Pascal, BASIC, C, C++, etc.) it seems
> only reasonable that there would be a Lisp represented there as well.
I vaguely recall that Lucid CL may have had a VMS implementation. Lucid
was acquired by Xanalysis a number of years ago, and I have no idea
whether they still offer it.
--
Barry Margolin, ······@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Barry Margolin <······@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> I vaguely recall that Lucid CL may have had a VMS implementation.
> Lucid was acquired by Xanalysis a number of years ago, and I have no
> idea whether they still offer it.
It has been renamed to Liquid Common Lisp:
http://www.lispworks.com/products/lcl.html
--
Lars Brinkhoff, Services for Unix, Linux, GCC, HTTP
Brinkhoff Consulting http://www.brinkhoff.se/
Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
> It has been renamed to Liquid Common Lisp:
> http://www.lispworks.com/products/lcl.html
Yes, but the VAX port dematerialized long before that (as well as the
386 port and a few others).
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:39:27 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Nagel ("Bruce") writes:
Bruce> Are there Common Lisp implementations which run under the VMS
VMS was one of the early platforms on which Common Lisp
development was done; the implementation was called "NIL".
And that's also about how much development and support
(has been done on it since about 1984...)
Bruce Nagel <·······@xm.freeshell.org> writes:
> Are there Common Lisp implementations which run under the VMS operating
> system?
Didn't DEC have one, called VAXLisp?
In article <···············@todday.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
Jeff Dalton <····@todday.inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Bruce Nagel <·······@xm.freeshell.org> writes:
>
> > Are there Common Lisp implementations which run under the VMS operating
> > system?
>
> Didn't DEC have one, called VAXLisp?
Yeah. I used this as late as 1993 on a Vaxstation.
It was CLtL, not CLtL2, so now CLOS, conditions,
etc.
Sashank Varma wrote:
> Yeah. I used this as late as 1993 on a Vaxstation.
> It was CLtL, not CLtL2, so now CLOS, conditions,
> etc.
This is correct. DEC (since absorbed into COMPAQ (since absorbed into HP))
had a Common Lisp product, called VAXLisp, in the 1980s and continuing into
the early '90s. IIRC both Franz and Lucid had CL versions for VMS, but
both of these were abandoned when DCEOCMPHAPQ or whatever they are now
called made VMS users sit in the corner with a pointed cap on their heads,
effectively killing the market.
I believe Walter Van Woggen was the technical lead for much of the VAXLisp
development period, a good guy who I've lost track of him over the years.
DCEOCMPHAPQ, back when it was still called DEC, was very generous to the
X3J13 standardization effort (see the credits) although VAXLisp itself
never got very close to the eventual standard. Nonetheless, if you are
running on legacy hardware with a legacy version of VMS, and if you can
find a legacy version of VAXLisp, it might be a usable option.
SFAICR the final versions of NIL were even less compatible with ANSI CL.
"Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
························@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com:
> Sashank Varma wrote:
>
>> Yeah. I used this as late as 1993 on a Vaxstation.
>> It was CLtL, not CLtL2, so now CLOS, conditions,
>> etc.
>
> This is correct. DEC (since absorbed into COMPAQ (since absorbed into
> HP)) had a Common Lisp product, called VAXLisp, in the 1980s and
> continuing into the early '90s. IIRC both Franz and Lucid had CL
> versions for VMS, but both of these were abandoned when DCEOCMPHAPQ or
> whatever they are now called made VMS users sit in the corner with a
> pointed cap on their heads, effectively killing the market.
>
> I believe Walter Van Woggen was the technical lead for much of the
> VAXLisp development period, a good guy who I've lost track of him over
> the years. DCEOCMPHAPQ, back when it was still called DEC, was very
> generous to the X3J13 standardization effort (see the credits)
> although VAXLisp itself never got very close to the eventual standard.
> Nonetheless, if you are running on legacy hardware with a legacy
> version of VMS, and if you can find a legacy version of VAXLisp, it
> might be a usable option.
>
> SFAICR the final versions of NIL were even less compatible with ANSI
> CL.
>
You are correct -- except that Walter's last name is van Roggen and not
Van Woggen. I was one of the folks who worked on VAX Lisp. Many of the
people who worked on that implementation are identified in the
acknowledgments section of Guy Steele's Common Lisp book from Digital
Press. I joined the development team after the book was published. I
have no idea what happened to the software or how someone might get a
copy to run on an old VAX. Now you've got me thinking about the good
old days. . .
-- Rich
In article <···································@63.240.76.16>,
Richard Robbins <·········@iTinker.net> wrote:
> "Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
> ························@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com:
>
> > Sashank Varma wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah. I used this as late as 1993 on a Vaxstation.
> >> It was CLtL, not CLtL2, so now CLOS, conditions,
> >> etc.
> >
> > This is correct. DEC (since absorbed into COMPAQ (since absorbed into
> > HP)) had a Common Lisp product, called VAXLisp, in the 1980s and
> > continuing into the early '90s. IIRC both Franz and Lucid had CL
> > versions for VMS, but both of these were abandoned when DCEOCMPHAPQ or
> > whatever they are now called made VMS users sit in the corner with a
> > pointed cap on their heads, effectively killing the market.
> >
> > I believe Walter Van Woggen was the technical lead for much of the
> > VAXLisp development period, a good guy who I've lost track of him over
> > the years. DCEOCMPHAPQ, back when it was still called DEC, was very
> > generous to the X3J13 standardization effort (see the credits)
> > although VAXLisp itself never got very close to the eventual standard.
> > Nonetheless, if you are running on legacy hardware with a legacy
> > version of VMS, and if you can find a legacy version of VAXLisp, it
> > might be a usable option.
> >
> > SFAICR the final versions of NIL were even less compatible with ANSI
> > CL.
> >
>
> You are correct -- except that Walter's last name is van Roggen and not
> Van Woggen. I was one of the folks who worked on VAX Lisp. Many of the
> people who worked on that implementation are identified in the
> acknowledgments section of Guy Steele's Common Lisp book from Digital
> Press. I joined the development team after the book was published. I
> have no idea what happened to the software or how someone might get a
> copy to run on an old VAX. Now you've got me thinking about the good
> old days. . .
After I wrote my initial I reply, I began wondering about
why DEC was so supportive of Common Lisp in its early
days. In particular, was the driving force the necessity
of running the XCON expert system?
Sashank Varma wrote:
> After I wrote my initial I reply, I began wondering about
> why DEC was so supportive of Common Lisp in its early
> days. In particular, was the driving force the necessity
> of running the XCON expert system?
I thought that the PDP and VAX instruction sets were considered best for
implementing Lisp. If your architecture is the best for a language,
supporting the growth of that language is just smart marketing.
Can anyone confirm, and maybe point to some specifics in the instruction
set which were big wins?
--
Cameron MacKinnon
Toronto, Canada
Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> wrote:
+---------------
| Sashank Varma wrote:
| > After I wrote my initial I reply, I began wondering about
| > why DEC was so supportive of Common Lisp in its early days. ...
|
| I thought that the PDP and VAX instruction sets were considered best for
| implementing Lisp. If your architecture is the best for a language,
| supporting the growth of that language is just smart marketing.
|
| Can anyone confirm, and maybe point to some specifics in the instruction
| set which were big wins?
+---------------
Dunno 'bout the VAX, but the PDP-10 instruction set architecture was
*wonderful* for Lisp:
- 36-bit words with 18-bit addresses, so a cons cell fit in a single word.
- Hardware stack manipulation instructions (*any* register [but 0] could
host a stack, though #o17 was the default convention), including stack-
based subroutine call/return (PUSHJ/POPJ).
- Almost every possible combination of half-word instructions, with
indexing. For example, assuming register "T0" has a Lisp object pointer
in it, here's an instruction sequence for CADDAR (leaves result in T0):
HLRZ T0,(T0)
HRRZ T0,(T0)
HRRZ T0,(T0)
HLRZ T0,(T0)
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Sashank Varma <····@vanderbilt.edu> writes:
> After I wrote my initial I reply, I began wondering about
> why DEC was so supportive of Common Lisp in its early
> days. In particular, was the driving force the necessity
> of running the XCON expert system?
Wasn't XCON written in something different from Lisp, possibly Prolog
or other logic language?
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
In article <··············@plato.moon.paoloamoroso.it>,
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> wrote:
> Sashank Varma <····@vanderbilt.edu> writes:
>
> > After I wrote my initial I reply, I began wondering about
> > why DEC was so supportive of Common Lisp in its early
> > days. In particular, was the driving force the necessity
> > of running the XCON expert system?
>
> Wasn't XCON written in something different from Lisp, possibly Prolog
> or other logic language?
My memory is that XCON was written in OPS5. Google confirms this
(http://www.haley.com/2186141377075219/RuleLanguages.html):
===
OPS5 from Carnegie Mellon University
OPS5 was the first production system language based on the Rete
Algorithm and the first AI language to succeed in commercial application
when Dr. John McDermott implemented a rule-based configurer of VAX
computer systems for Digital Equipment Corporation. R1 was originally
implemented in Lisp but was later ported to a Bliss version of OPS5 for
performance reasons, after which DEC renamed R1 to XCON. XCON was
tremendously successful and led to the development of a number of
additional, substantial expert systems using OPS5, several of which were
implemented by Paul Haley.
===
My memory is that OPS5 was ported to Common Lisp around the
time CLtL1 was being hatched. So my inferred, informal
history is that by the mid 1980s, XCON was running under a
Common Lisp implementation of OPS5, and that the need to keep
XCON running drove DEC's early support for Common Lisp in
general and VaxLisp in particular. Is this correct?