Hi all,
I'm just starting out with common lisp, and i'm having a hard time deciding
on an implementation. I was wondering if anyone could give me some pointers.
here's a wish list:
- free. (or, at least for non-commercial stuff. this is basically a try-out)
- runs on windows. (yeah, i know... I don't like it either but it's a
requirement)
- complete and stable.
- good documentation and large user community ( ==> newbie-friendly)
- both interpreted + native compiler...? (would be nice...)
I understand posts like these have probably been done to death, so maybe to
make it a bit more interesting for you, I could rephrase the question:
"which CL implementation are you using, and why?"
thanks a lot.
stijn.
Stijn De Saeger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm just starting out with common lisp, and i'm having a hard time deciding
> on an implementation. I was wondering if anyone could give me some pointers.
>
> here's a wish list:
> - free. (or, at least for non-commercial stuff. this is basically a try-out)
> - runs on windows. (yeah, i know... I don't like it either but it's a
> requirement)
> - complete and stable.
> - good documentation and large user community ( ==> newbie-friendly)
> - both interpreted + native compiler...? (would be nice...)
The intersection of your requirements yields the empty set. If you are
willing to forgo the "native compiler" bit, you can have CLisp, which is
just fine.
Cheers
--
Marco
Stijn De Saeger <···@spammers.die> wrote:
--snip some requirements--
> - free. (or, at least for non-commercial stuff. this is basically a try-out)
> - runs on windows. (yeah, i know... I don't like it either but it's a
> requirement)
> - complete and stable.
Clisp may fit the requirements, depending on importance of a native
compiler and your definition of completeness.
Otherwise it's "Pick any two" kind of thing. Corman is free for
non-commercial use, but apparently not quite complete (but I may be
mistaken). Lispworks and Allegro are highly acclaimed, but not free (trial
versions exist, though).
Unixoid oses (including OS X) the free alternatives are much more
numerous.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
·········@random-state.net wrote:
> Otherwise it's "Pick any two" kind of thing. Corman is free for
> non-commercial use, but apparently not quite complete (but I may be
> mistaken). Lispworks and Allegro are highly acclaimed, but not free (trial
> versions exist, though).
I know what you are getting at, but as such a general statement it's not
quite right. "Free" means different things to different people. I find
LispWorks and Allegro "free enough" for my purposes, for example.
The limitations of the trial versions of LispWorks and Allegro may sound
scaring to newbies, but they are not as problematic as one might think
at first, depending on what you actually want to do. In general, the
vendors of the commercial CL implementations are much more accessible
than those of other, more popular languages.
Pascal
--
ECOOP 2004 Workshops - Oslo, Norway
*1st European Lisp and Scheme Workshop, June 13*
http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lisp-ecoop/
*2nd Post-Java Workshop, June 14*
http://prog.vub.ac.be/~wdmeuter/PostJava04/
Stijn De Saeger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm just starting out with common lisp, and i'm having a hard time
> deciding on an implementation. I was wondering if anyone could give me
> some pointers.
>
> here's a wish list:
> - free. (or, at least for non-commercial stuff. this is basically a
> try-out) - runs on windows. (yeah, i know... I don't like it either but
> it's a requirement)
> - complete and stable.
> - good documentation and large user community ( ==> newbie-friendly)
> - both interpreted + native compiler...? (would be nice...)
You can't have all these things. If running on Windows is a requirement,
then presumably it is being required by someone who can pay for a
commercial Lisp.
Otherwise, CLISP is your best (and only) bet. Google for "lisp in a box".
> I understand posts like these have probably been done to death, so maybe
> to make it a bit more interesting for you, I could rephrase the
> question: "which CL implementation are you using, and why?"
SBCL, because I like it and it seems fairly complete. Doesn't run under
Windows, though.
"Svein Ove Aas" <··············@brage.info> wrote in message
·························@news4.e.nsc.no...
> Stijn De Saeger wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm just starting out with common lisp, and i'm having a hard time
> > deciding on an implementation. I was wondering if anyone could give me
> > some pointers.
> >
> > here's a wish list:
> > - free. (or, at least for non-commercial stuff. this is basically a
> > try-out) - runs on windows. (yeah, i know... I don't like it either but
> > it's a requirement)
> > - complete and stable.
> > - good documentation and large user community ( ==> newbie-friendly)
> > - both interpreted + native compiler...? (would be nice...)
>
> You can't have all these things. If running on Windows is a requirement,
> then presumably it is being required by someone who can pay for a
> commercial Lisp.
Horsefeathers. Xanalys LispWorks Personal Edition is exactly what you need
here. It has a heap limit (which can bite you if you have a runaway recurive
thing) and 4 (I think) hour run time before it suddenly quits, which makes
it less suitable for long term servers.
But for dabbling and playing about, LW Personal is great solution for
Windows.
Regards,
Will Hartung
(·····@msoft.com)
"Will Hartung" <·····@msoft.com> writes:
> Horsefeathers. Xanalys LispWorks Personal Edition is exactly what you need
> here. It has a heap limit (which can bite you if you have a runaway recurive
> thing) and 4 (I think) hour run time before it suddenly quits, which makes
> it less suitable for long term servers.
That sounds like windows to me. Except that windows probably has a
larger heap limit and the four hour crash time is actually a random
function rather than a constant.
I have in the back of my mind the thought of buying a commercial
version of Lispworks. I only know about Franz and Xanalys for
commercial Lisps that run on all the platforms I'm interested in.
It's good that there are trial versions to try out.
Meanwhile, I use SBCL on Linux and Mac OS X and OpenMCL on Mac OS X.
I don't do Windows although if someone offered me extreme wealth, I
just might go back.
--
I wouldn't mind the rat race so much if it wasn't for all the damn cats.
As you say it this question has been done to death so I am just going to
give you a link.
http://www.cliki.net/Common%20Lisp%20implementation
To you second question I use Corman lisp because I want a free common lisp
compiler that compiles to fast machine code on windows and the environment
is without
(serious) restrictions.
It's a compiler without a interpreter but that seems to work fine except
that
debugging is more limited. (No way to continue after a error except cerror)
As for newbie friendly most are the same. Get the resources from the net.
For a intro "successfull list" http://www.psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/cover.html
worked for me and probly will for you is you already know how to program.
Under linux I used CMUCL but would probably use SBCL now.
Have fun!
John
On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:08:07 +0900, Stijn De Saeger <···@spammers.die>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm just starting out with common lisp, and i'm having a hard time
> deciding
> on an implementation. I was wondering if anyone could give me some
> pointers.
>
> here's a wish list:
> - free. (or, at least for non-commercial stuff. this is basically a
> try-out)
> - runs on windows. (yeah, i know... I don't like it either but it's a
> requirement)
> - complete and stable.
> - good documentation and large user community ( ==> newbie-friendly)
> - both interpreted + native compiler...? (would be nice...)
>
> I understand posts like these have probably been done to death, so maybe
> to
> make it a bit more interesting for you, I could rephrase the question:
> "which CL implementation are you using, and why?"
>
> thanks a lot.
> stijn.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Stijn De Saeger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm just starting out with common lisp, and i'm having a hard time deciding
> on an implementation. I was wondering if anyone could give me some pointers.
>
> here's a wish list:
> - free. (or, at least for non-commercial stuff. this is basically a try-out)
> - runs on windows. (yeah, i know... I don't like it either but it's a
> requirement)
> - complete and stable.
> - good documentation and large user community ( ==> newbie-friendly)
> - both interpreted + native compiler...? (would be nice...)
>
> I understand posts like these have probably been done to death, so maybe to
> make it a bit more interesting for you, I could rephrase the question:
> "which CL implementation are you using, and why?"
>
> thanks a lot.
> stijn.
Allegro Common Lisp, Lispworks, and Corman Common Lisp are probably the
best fits. All are commercial products, but all provide free trail
versions. The Corman trial version allows you essentially unrestricted
use of the compiler and runtime (but not the IDE) for personal use.
On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:08:07 +0900, Stijn De Saeger wrote:
> I understand posts like these have probably been done to death, so maybe to
> make it a bit more interesting for you, I could rephrase the question:
> "which CL implementation are you using, and why?"
Won't help you much, since it doesn't run on Windows, but: Cmucl.
Because I've never seen a better compiler (for any language, not just
for Lisp). I should probably get around to trying SBCL at some point
though...
Cheers,
Bill.
--
Dr. William Bland.
It would not be too unfair to any language to refer to Java as a
stripped down Lisp or Smalltalk with a C syntax. (Ken Anderson).
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.
The 'free' requirement is just for trying stuff out. Once I get confident
enough in both CL technology and my ability to use it for real projects, I
have no problems paying for a state of the art environment. Only, at this
stage I'm just looking for the best way to get started with it without
making any unnecesary commitments. I think that's reasonable.
cheers,
stijn.
Stijn De Saeger wrote:
> Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.
>
> The 'free' requirement is just for trying stuff out.
I think the two which meet your requirments are AllegroCL and Lispworks
trial versions. I like AllegroCL, but Lispworks has many fans. Support
here is pretty good. You might also ask (here) if there is a Lispnik
social club in your area.
kenny
--
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
On Tue, 18 May 2004 22:14:37 +0900, "Stijn De Saeger" <···@spammers.die> wrote:
> The 'free' requirement is just for trying stuff out.
Then you should definitely look at the trial versions of LispWorks and
AllegroCL.
<http://www.lispworks.com/>
<http://www.franz.com/>
Edi.
Greetings! GCL runs under windows, though a few relatively minor
issues remain.
Take care,
"Stijn De Saeger" <···@spammers.die> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm just starting out with common lisp, and i'm having a hard time deciding
> on an implementation. I was wondering if anyone could give me some pointers.
>
> here's a wish list:
> - free. (or, at least for non-commercial stuff. this is basically a try-out)
> - runs on windows. (yeah, i know... I don't like it either but it's a
> requirement)
> - complete and stable.
> - good documentation and large user community ( ==> newbie-friendly)
> - both interpreted + native compiler...? (would be nice...)
>
> I understand posts like these have probably been done to death, so maybe to
> make it a bit more interesting for you, I could rephrase the question:
> "which CL implementation are you using, and why?"
>
> thanks a lot.
> stijn.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Camm Maguire ····@enhanced.com
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah