Robert Rotstein wrote:
> What do Lisp programmers recommend as the best product (or freeware) for
> developing Lisp applications?
Most people here will say "Emacs", but if you
aren't up for that (like me), you could try
Armed Bear J: http://armedbear-j.sourceforge.net/
--
Randall Randall <·······@randallsquared.com>
Property law should use #'EQ , not #'EQUAL .
Robert Rotstein wrote:
> What do Lisp programmers recommend as the best product (or freeware) for
> developing Lisp applications?
The one that best matches your needs. ;)
Pascal
P.S.: See http://alu.cliki.net/Implementation . In my personal opinion,
the freeware editions of commercial implementations work better right
out of the box which should help you to focus on learning Lisp without
worrying about how to locate where certain problems stem from. The open
source implementations require you to pick and combine several tools
which leads to some overhead before you can get going. If you are
already familiar with Emacs, however, this shouldn't be a big issue.
--
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Jack: "Great."
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Best Lisp development environment?
Date:
Message-ID: <uwtxizhub.fsf@agharta.de>
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:04:51 +0200, Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote:
> The open source implementations require you to pick and combine
> several tools which leads to some overhead before you can get
> going. If you are already familiar with Emacs, however, this
> shouldn't be a big issue.
This shouldn't be an issue at all because there are several "Lisp In A
Box" distributions available which take away the pain of picking and
combining these tools. Once you're more familiar with Lisp and your
IDE you can get rid of the "box" and combine and/or change these tools
at will.
<http://common-lisp.net/project/lispbox/>
<http://www.cliki.net/Lisp%20in%20a%20Box>
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
From: Marco Baringer
Subject: Re: Best Lisp development environment?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2k6tivelu.fsf@bese.it>
"Robert Rotstein" <·········@verizon.net> writes:
> What do Lisp programmers recommend as the best product (or freeware) for
> developing Lisp applications?
[i'm assuming by "Lisp" you mean Common Lisp as defined by ANSI and
implemented by mcl, openmcl, cmucl, sbcl, abcl, lispworks, franz and
others.]
short answer (usefull free version):
SBCL + Emacs + SLIME
short answer (usefull commercial version):
(lispworks | allegro) + Emacs + SLIME
short answer (truthfull but useless version): that depends.
long answer (truthfull and, hopelly, usefull version):
developing lisp applications requires, more or less, three things: a
compiler and runtime, an ide and libs.
The compiler and runtime (the lisp implementation):
As far as the commercial implementations go i've never heard someone
complain about allegro (franz.com), lispworks (lispworks.com) or mcl
(digitool.com). personally i've never used them for real work so i
can't say, lispworks and allegro are available on windows, linux and
macos x, mcl is macos only.
As far as the open source stuff goes you've got quite a few options
and hey've all got their pros and cons. if you're on x86 *nix pick one
of clisp, cmucl or sbcl (if you can't tell the difference it means it
won't affect you). if you're on ppc try openmcl (cmucl, clisp and sbcl
are available though they're missing threads on ppc). if you're on
windows grab clisp (or finish the sbcl port :)).
If you're just starting out i'd suggest grabbing one of the trial
versions as they tend to Just Work. The commercial versions also tend
to have development goodies like steppers, graphical inspectors, gui
builders, documentation and are generally more "polished"
let me just remind you that this decision is not a major issue (at
first), whatever you decide you'll always be able to change later and
if you're just starting there's no appreciatable difference.
www.franz.com
www.lispworks.com
www.digitool.com
sbcl.sourceforge.net
cons.org/cmucl
openmcl.clozure.com
clisp.sourceforge.net
The IDE:
if you're using one of the open source implementations you can pick
between Emacs+SLIME, Emacs+SLIME and, should you feel daring,
Emacs+SLIME. Seriously, there's really no other option when it comes
to lisp development.
if you've got a commercial implementation then it will have its own
emacs-ish editor, though lispworks and franz are also supported by
SLIME.
whatever you chose i strongly suggest (i'd force you if i could) to
learn to use the editor _well_.
www.common-lisp.net/project/slime
www.cliki.net/
www.cliki.net/Editing%20Lisp%20Code%20with%20Emacs
www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html
The libs:
the commercial lisps come with lots of usefull libs (see the
respective product pages for more info) though these are often missing
in the trial versions. in particular all the commercial versions have
nice multi-platform GUI libraries (though McCLIM is comming along
quite nicely).
otherwise there's a lot of stuff available for lisp (and it's growing
pretty fast). have a look around cliki.net and common-lisp.net or just
ask here and you'll get 10 answers (of which 15 will be wrong but hey,
that's usenet for you).
www.cliki.net
www.common-lisp.net/projects.shtml
Other Links:
planet.lisp.org
·····@irc.freenode.net
www.lisp.org
happy hacking.
--
-Marco
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
-Leonard Cohen
From: Neo-LISPer
Subject: Re: Best Lisp development environment?
Date:
Message-ID: <87lldyy4rk.fsf@yahoo.com>
"Marco Baringer" <··@bese.it> writes:
> short answer (usefull free version):
> SBCL + Emacs + SLIME
Any reason to use SBCL (beta) instead of CMUCL?
From: marco
Subject: Re: Best Lisp development environment?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2acuetwy1.fsf@bese.it>
Neo-LISPer <··········@yahoo.com> writes:
>> short answer (usefull free version):
>> SBCL + Emacs + SLIME
>
> Any reason to use SBCL (beta) instead of CMUCL?
i'm an sbcl bigot :).
in all seriousness no, cmucl would work fine.
p.s. - sbcl is hardly beta.
--
-Marco
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
-Leonard Cohen
Neo-LISPer wrote:
> "Marco Baringer" <··@bese.it> writes:
>
>
>> short answer (usefull free version):
>> SBCL + Emacs + SLIME
>
> Any reason to use SBCL (beta) instead of CMUCL?
Using java-speak:
SBCL has "native" threading support, CMUCL does "green" threading. That
may qualify as a reason to use one or the other, depending on your
preferences (not that a lisp newbie is likely to dive straight into
threading, I suppose...)
AFAIK neither can currently save core properly once you use
threading.
In article <·····················@news.indigo.ie>,
David Golden <············@oceanfree.net> wrote:
> Neo-LISPer wrote:
>
> > "Marco Baringer" <··@bese.it> writes:
> >
> >
> >> short answer (usefull free version):
> >> SBCL + Emacs + SLIME
> >
> > Any reason to use SBCL (beta) instead of CMUCL?
>
> Using java-speak:
> SBCL has "native" threading support,
on x86 Linux.
> CMUCL does "green" threading.
on the "x86 platform".
> That
> may qualify as a reason to use one or the other, depending on your
> preferences (not that a lisp newbie is likely to dive straight into
> threading, I suppose...)
>
> AFAIK neither can currently save core properly once you use
> threading.
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Best Lisp development environment?
Date:
Message-ID: <u1xfq1seb.fsf@agharta.de>
On 22 Oct 2004 11:41:35 -0700, Neo-LISPer <··········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Any reason to use SBCL (beta) instead of CMUCL?
Why do you think SBCL is "beta"?
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
From: Neo-LISPer
Subject: Re: Best Lisp development environment?
Date:
Message-ID: <87oeiur12c.fsf@yahoo.com>
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
> On 22 Oct 2004 11:41:35 -0700, Neo-LISPer <··········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Any reason to use SBCL (beta) instead of CMUCL?
>
> Why do you think SBCL is "beta"?
It says so on its web site.
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Best Lisp development environment?
Date:
Message-ID: <ud5zazg2z.fsf@agharta.de>
On 22 Oct 2004 12:43:23 -0700, Neo-LISPer <··········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
>
>> On 22 Oct 2004 11:41:35 -0700, Neo-LISPer <··········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Any reason to use SBCL (beta) instead of CMUCL?
>>
>> Why do you think SBCL is "beta"?
>
> It says so on its web site.
Here?
<http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/>
I don't see the word "beta" there. Anyway, I think SBCL is no more
"beta" than other free Lisp implementations are. It's a fork from
CMUCL which implies a solid foundation. They didn't start from
scratch. There might be reasons to prefer other Lisps but SBCL being
"beta" should not be amongst them.
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
From: Neo-LISPer
Subject: Re: Best Lisp development environment?
Date:
Message-ID: <87is92r02j.fsf@yahoo.com>
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
> I don't see the word "beta" there.
Click on "Project Page" :-)
SBCL is beta in the sense that non-standard interfaces and fasl-format are
liable to undergo non-backwards-compatible changes before 1.0, but not in
terms of stability or ANSI conformance.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus "Not as clumsy or random as a C++ or Java.
An elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
From: marco
Subject: Re: Best Lisp development environment?
Date:
Message-ID: <m28y9xtry1.fsf@bese.it>
·········@random-state.net writes:
> SBCL is beta in the sense that non-standard interfaces and fasl-format are
> liable to undergo non-backwards-compatible changes before 1.0, [...]
and after 1.0 that would never happen?
is the stuff on http://sbcl-internals.cliki.net/One%20Point%20Zero
really neccessary for 1.0-ness? maybe sbcl his higher standards but
most projects would have gone 1.0 a long time ago. sbcl is a stable
high quality lisp implementation, just tag 0.8.16 as 1.0 (or 8.16 :))
and be done with it.
--
-Marco
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
-Leonard Cohen
From: Christophe Rhodes
Subject: Re: Best Lisp development environment?
Date:
Message-ID: <sqmzydv5ow.fsf@cam.ac.uk>
marco <··@bese.it> writes:
> ·········@random-state.net writes:
>
>> SBCL is beta in the sense that non-standard interfaces and fasl-format are
>> liable to undergo non-backwards-compatible changes before 1.0, [...]
>
> and after 1.0 that would never happen?
Anything that was sufficiently disruptive (for an as-yet undecided
meaning of "sufficiently") would eventually cause an increment in the
version number. This means that at least I want to be confident that
I can fix bugs without causing disruption, and to the extent that this
is possible without breaking interfaces that people are using, yes.
My working model for a post-1.0 system is that there would be
maintenance on the stable branch and continued development along CVS
HEAD (or equivalent); since this is a potential /increase/ in work for
sbcl developers, for us to bless the system as 1.0 means a
corresponding increase in confidence that there isn't too much pain
involved in maintenance.
> is the stuff on http://sbcl-internals.cliki.net/One%20Point%20Zero
> really neccessary for 1.0-ness? maybe sbcl his higher standards but
> most projects would have gone 1.0 a long time ago.
I can't bring myself to believe that people who make decisions really
worry about the version number, but even if they do, then the
engineers (or other people who want to use sbcl) are free to patch the
system and call it "FooCL 2004".
To turn around your question, why should sbcl developers compromise
their integrity for the benefit of those with short-sighted management
practices?
> sbcl is a stable high quality lisp implementation, just tag 0.8.16
> as 1.0 (or 8.16 :)) and be done with it.
So what would tagging a particular version as "1.0" achieve? It
wouldn't improve the quality of sbcl itself, would it?
Christophe
In article <···············@trndny08>,
"Robert Rotstein" <·········@verizon.net> wrote:
> What do Lisp programmers recommend as the best product (or freeware) for
> developing Lisp applications?
LispWorks and Allegro CL are the best overall, IMHO.
Personally I'm using LispWorks on Mac OS X, where it
has a really nice and good looking IDE (Aqua/Cocoa based).
The same IDE runs on Windows and Unix. There it is nice, but
not so good looking - naturally. ;-)
LispWorks comes with a lot of tools for development based
on their own GUI toolkit (CAPI). The Lisp implementations
itself is really extensive.