> Most (about 95%) of the users of the end-user program I'm the main
> developer of, use Windows. But I rarely do development on Windows,
Same here
> I do most of the development of that application on linux, and some
> on my Mac laptop. The cross platform wonder that let's me do this
> is Xanalys LispWorks :-)
We use Common Lisp and GTK+ to develop and deliver a program. It's LispWorks
on Windows and CMUCL on Linux. 95% of the development is done with CMUCL on
Linux. After we managed to get around or live with the tiny stack limit, tiny
max & min fixnum, tiny array size limit, tiny max string length, so-so
numerical performance, and slow foreign function calls of LispWorks, this
setup (CMUCL/Linux and LispWorks/Windows) works across platforms wonderfully.
Best,
-cph
From: Nikodemus Siivola
Subject: Re: Cross platform wonders (was Re: C++ sucks for games)
Date:
Message-ID: <cn09pr$fgs82$1@midnight.cs.hut.fi>
Nikonos <·······@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
> Linux. After we managed to get around or live with the tiny stack limit, tiny
> max & min fixnum, tiny array size limit, tiny max string length, so-so
> numerical performance, and slow foreign function calls of LispWorks, this
I presume this is referring to the free trial version of Lispworks?
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
Nikodemus Siivola <········@sokeri.niksula.hut.fi> writes:
> Nikonos <·······@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Linux. After we managed to get around or live with the tiny stack limit, tiny
>> max & min fixnum, tiny array size limit, tiny max string length, so-so
>> numerical performance, and slow foreign function calls of LispWorks, this
>
> I presume this is referring to the free trial version of Lispworks?
Nope, LWW Pro.
Best wishes,
-cph
In article <··············@midnight.cs.hut.fi>,
Nikodemus Siivola <········@sokeri.niksula.hut.fi> wrote:
> Nikonos <·······@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Linux. After we managed to get around or live with the tiny stack limit,
> > tiny
> > max & min fixnum, tiny array size limit, tiny max string length, so-so
> > numerical performance, and slow foreign function calls of LispWorks, this
>
> I presume this is referring to the free trial version of Lispworks?
You'd think, but he also said "deliver".
Hey, what's this about slow FFI calls?
kt
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: Cross platform wonders (was Re: C++ sucks for games)
Date:
Message-ID: <opshbb670hpqzri1@mjolner.upc.no>
On 11 Nov 2004 18:07:55 GMT, Nikodemus Siivola
<········@sokeri.niksula.hut.fi> wrote:
> Nikonos <·······@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Linux. After we managed to get around or live with the tiny stack
>> limit, tiny
>> max & min fixnum, tiny array size limit, tiny max string length, so-so
>> numerical performance, and slow foreign function calls of LispWorks,
>> this
>
> I presume this is referring to the free trial version of Lispworks?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Nikodemus
>
Sound disconcerning..
Do you have some numbers to support your claim?
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: Cross platform wonders (was Re: C++ sucks for games)
Date:
Message-ID: <ymivfcc6sbv.fsf@sevak.isi.edu>
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
>
>
> > Nikonos <·······@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Linux. After we managed to get around or live with the tiny stack
> >> limit, tiny
> >> max & min fixnum, tiny array size limit, tiny max string length, so-so
> >> numerical performance, and slow foreign function calls of LispWorks,
> >> this
>
> Sound disconcerning..
> Do you have some numbers to support your claim?
Well, I can speak at least a bit to the fixnum limit, since I blundered
into it as well when testing portability.
Other lisps we use ACL, MCL have 29 bits of fixnum range. IIRC CMUCL is
also similar. LispWorks apparently depends on the platform. On MacOS
they have 28 or 29 bits. On x86 architecture (Linux) it is only 24
bits. I recall wondering at the time if this has something to do with
the x86 instruction set making full byte masking or extraction easier?
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: Cross platform wonders (was Re: C++ sucks for games)
Date:
Message-ID: <opshbkyljzpqzri1@mjolner.upc.no>
On 11 Nov 2004 12:31:16 -0800, Thomas A. Russ <···@sevak.isi.edu> wrote:
> Well, I can speak at least a bit to the fixnum limit, since I blundered
> into it as well when testing portability.
>
> Other lisps we use ACL, MCL have 29 bits of fixnum range. IIRC CMUCL is
> also similar. LispWorks apparently depends on the platform. On MacOS
> they have 28 or 29 bits. On x86 architecture (Linux) it is only 24
> bits. I recall wondering at the time if this has something to do with
> the x86 instruction set making full byte masking or extraction easier?
>
Nop, don't think so. I know Corman Lisp uses 29 bits.
The pentium instruction set dosn't have any big suprises in this area.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Cross platform wonders (was Re: C++ sucks for games)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey31xezz8wj.fsf@cley.com>
* Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
> I presume this is referring to the free trial version of Lispworks?
No. LW on x86 platforms does have rather small limits for fixnums and
hence array sizes (I think 24 bits though I am not sure). I wish
they'd fix this, although it's not often a problem for many
applications.
--tim
Hi
Nikonos <·······@nospam.comcast.net> writes:
>> Most (about 95%) of the users of the end-user program I'm the main
>> developer of, use Windows. But I rarely do development on Windows,
>
> Same here
>
>> I do most of the development of that application on linux, and some
>> on my Mac laptop. The cross platform wonder that let's me do this
>> is Xanalys LispWorks :-)
>
> We use Common Lisp and GTK+ to develop and deliver a program. It's LispWorks
> on Windows and CMUCL on Linux. 95% of the development is done with CMUCL on
> Linux. After we managed to get around or live with the tiny stack limit, tiny
> max & min fixnum, tiny array size limit, tiny max string length, so-so
> numerical performance, and slow foreign function calls of LispWorks, this
> setup (CMUCL/Linux and LispWorks/Windows) works across platforms wonderfully.
I thought GTK+ was extremely unstable on Windows on its own, even
without Lisp! What were your users' experiences with it?
What do you use for gluing CMUCL and GTK+, LW and GTK+?
Why not use CAPI or CLIM that come with Lisworks Pro?
I didn't get it: was the subject line meant to be sarcasm? Different
fixnum and sequence length limits usually don't lend themselves very
well to cross-platform portability.
Thanks
Nikonos <·······@nospam.comcast.net> writes:
>> Most (about 95%) of the users of the end-user program I'm the main
>> developer of, use Windows. But I rarely do development on Windows,
>
> Same here
>
>> I do most of the development of that application on linux, and some
>> on my Mac laptop. The cross platform wonder that let's me do this
>> is Xanalys LispWorks :-)
>
> We use Common Lisp and GTK+ to develop and deliver a program. It's LispWorks
> on Windows and CMUCL on Linux.
May I ask how you get GTK and LispWorks work together on windows? Or
don't you use it? If you use LispWorks on Windows why don't you use
LispWork on Linux too?
Regards
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.