I'm been doing a lot of reading (and ordered PCL) and I'm really
looking forward to doing some serious work with Lisp. But the first
thing I did was try to install cl-ncurses, and UFFI broke because it
doesn't (seem to) support CLisp.
I chose CLisp because it has command line completion editing history
and I don't want to have to go back to emacs to write in Lisp.
How often is this going to happen, where the tool I need won't work
under the Lisp I have?
jonathon wrote:
> I'm been doing a lot of reading (and ordered PCL) and I'm really
> looking forward to doing some serious work with Lisp. But the first
> thing I did was try to install cl-ncurses, and UFFI broke because it
> doesn't (seem to) support CLisp.
<hint> You just named three open source products. UFFI lacks CLisp
support. <\hint>
I forget where we stand with hello-c, my nascent UFFI fork, but I
/think/ we started adding CLisp support to that. This in case the UFFI
project is not interested in any CLisp compatibility you care to offer.
>
> I chose CLisp because it has command line completion editing history
> and I don't want to have to go back to emacs to write in Lisp.
Unrelated: emacs+slime is not as elegant as commercial IDEs, but it is
definitely worth the effort.
>
> How often is this going to happen, where the tool I need won't work
> under the Lisp I have?
>
Depends. If the tool is precisely about resolving incompatibilities
between things done differently by different Lisps because those things
are not covered by the spec (such as UFFIs brave attempt to hide
variations in FFIs), then there will always be the question, Did they
get to my Lisp? Other times there will be fewer problems, but there are
a surprising number of Lisps running around out there for a dead
language, and open source developers have a hard timegetting to them all
for testing and even compatibility.
kenny
--
Cells? Cello? Cells-Gtk?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://lisp.tech.coop/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
"Doctor, I wrestled with reality for forty years, and I am happy to
state that I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
...
> there are a surprising number of Lisps running around out there for a
> dead language ...
Yes, there are. Presumably each one under active development also has
an active user community meaning each one has something special to
offer. I'm not really sure if this is a good thing or not. On the
one hand you have fragmentation. On the other you have other ways to
try things, eg extentions to the language or implementation of spec
features (like CLisp's wicked fast bignums).
--
An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1
David Steuber wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> ...
>
>>there are a surprising number of Lisps running around out there for a
>>dead language ...
>
>
> Yes, there are. Presumably each one under active development also has
> an active user community meaning each one has something special to
> offer. I'm not really sure if this is a good thing or not.
<g> Well, the good news is that there is nothing anyone can do about it:
Common Lisp breeds passionate devotion, from which comes not just users
but actual implementations. So i think we are stuck with them. :)
How often on c.l.python do you see folks talking about writing their own
Python interpreter? Which reminds me of Paul Graham. How often do you
see folks who got rich on Java creating VC incubators for developers
using Java?
This is one sick language. :)
kenny
--
Cells? Cello? Cells-Gtk?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://lisp.tech.coop/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
"Doctor, I wrestled with reality for forty years, and I am happy to
state that I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Differences in Lisp implementations a hinderance?
Date:
Message-ID: <3c3nbrF6hh9ihU1@individual.net>
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> How often on c.l.python do you see folks talking about writing their own
> Python interpreter? Which reminds me of Paul Graham. How often do you
> see folks who got rich on Java creating VC incubators for developers
> using Java?
This is a nice example of how removing arbitrary restrictions
(like braindead syntax) allows for more competition and thus
better overall language evolution and implementation quality.
How many Python implementation are there? 3? How about Java
(talking *complete* implementations)? How about Scheme? :D
--
No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's
consent. -- Abraham Lincoln
From: Karl A. Krueger
Subject: Re: Differences in Lisp implementations a hinderance?
Date:
Message-ID: <d3jl17$3nd$1@baldur.whoi.edu>
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> This is a nice example of how removing arbitrary restrictions
> (like braindead syntax) allows for more competition and thus
> better overall language evolution and implementation quality.
>
> How many Python implementation are there? 3?
At least three that people really use -- CPython, Jython, IronPython --
and a couple of others in development. For instance, there's Pirate,
which is a Python compiler for the Parrot virtual machine.
> How about Java (talking *complete* implementations)?
Sun's and IBM's are the usual suspects. Microsoft wrote a deliberately
broken one and got sued for their trouble. There's a whole heap of
open-source ones but I'm not sure if any of them are really complete --
many have a working JVM, but a complete library (classpath) is not yet
there.
> How about Scheme? :D
Lots.
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu> { s/example/whoi/ }
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> How often on c.l.python do you see folks talking about writing their
> own Python interpreter? Which reminds me of Paul Graham. How often do
> you see folks who got rich on Java creating VC incubators for
> developers using Java?
Who got rich on Java? (and I don't mean by teaching it.)
--
An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1
David Steuber wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>How often on c.l.python do you see folks talking about writing their
>>own Python interpreter? Which reminds me of Paul Graham. How often do
>>you see folks who got rich on Java creating VC incubators for
>>developers using Java?
>
>
> Who got rich on Java? (and I don't mean by teaching it.)
>
Come on, just use Google to find the web page where the person gives
credit to Java for... uh, never mind.
kenny
--
Cells? Cello? Cells-Gtk?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://lisp.tech.coop/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
"Doctor, I wrestled with reality for forty years, and I am happy to
state that I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:15:54 -0700, jonathon wrote:
> I chose CLisp because it has command line completion editing history and I
> don't want to have to go back to emacs to write in Lisp.
I really do recommend trying emacs+slime for working with lisp. If, for
whatever reason, you want to avoid emacs, try using rlwrap,
<http://utopia.knoware.nl/~hlub/uck/rlwrap/>, as a wrapper around cmucl or
sbcl. I find rlwrap, with its persistent history, to be far superior to
clisp's line-editing abilities. Take a look at
<http://www.cliki.net/CMUCL%20Hints>, especially the section titled
"Command line editing and auto completion with CMUCL." The procedure will
be roughly the same if you use sbcl.
> How often is this going to happen, where the tool I need won't work under
> the Lisp I have?
Frequently, I am sorry to say.
--Jim Amundson
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Differences in Lisp implementations a hinderance?
Date:
Message-ID: <uk6n8kr5g.fsf@agharta.de>
On 12 Apr 2005 07:15:54 -0700, "jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> How often is this going to happen, where the tool I need won't work
> under the Lisp I have?
And have you stopped beating your wife yet?
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2005 07:15:54 -0700, "jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>
> > How often is this going to happen, where the tool I need won't work
> > under the Lisp I have?
>
> And have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I'm not quite sure what that's supposed to mean, except that neither
answer will sound good.
But aside from that, am I better off going back to CMUCL lisp and just
dealing with it that way, since there will be more support for it?
From: Wade Humeniuk
Subject: Re: Differences in Lisp implementations a hinderance?
Date:
Message-ID: <weR6e.29916$jR3.21497@edtnps84>
jonathon wrote:
>
> But aside from that, am I better off going back to CMUCL lisp and just
> dealing with it that way, since there will be more support for it?
>
Since cl-ncurses only seems to be known to work with SBCL on Linux, I
would stick with that. Your requirement for using cl-ncurses is
pretty specific so you should let that requirement drive your
decision.
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> I'm been doing a lot of reading (and ordered PCL) and I'm really
> looking forward to doing some serious work with Lisp. But the first
> thing I did was try to install cl-ncurses, and UFFI broke because it
> doesn't (seem to) support CLisp.
>
> I chose CLisp because it has command line completion editing history
> and I don't want to have to go back to emacs to write in Lisp.
I've started two years ago to work on a UFFI for clisp, but I have
been sidetracked. It's not complete yet, but you can fetch it and
terminate it if you're pressed.
http://www.informatimago.com/develop/lisp/index.html#clisp
http://www.informatimago.com/develop/lisp/index.html#cvs
> How often is this going to happen, where the tool I need won't work
> under the Lisp I have?
Always.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
You're always typing.
Well, let's see you ignore my
sitting on your hands.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:15:54 -0700, jonathon wrote:
> I chose CLisp because it has command line completion editing history
> and I don't want to have to go back to emacs to write in Lisp.
Use rlwrap with any non-readline enhanced Lisp implementation. I prefer it
to those implementations that compile in readline because it can preserve
input history between sessions.
<http://utopia.knoware.nl/~hlub/uck/rlwrap/>
<http://packages.debian.org/unstable/utils/rlwrap>
Run, for example: rlwrap sbcl
Regards,
Adam
From: Florian Weimer
Subject: Re: Differences in Lisp implementations a hinderance?
Date:
Message-ID: <87wtr7u1kk.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
* Adam Warner:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:15:54 -0700, jonathon wrote:
>
>> I chose CLisp because it has command line completion editing history
>> and I don't want to have to go back to emacs to write in Lisp.
>
> Use rlwrap with any non-readline enhanced Lisp implementation. I prefer it
> to those implementations that compile in readline because it can preserve
> input history between sessions.
Shouldn't it be trivial to add this functionality to CLISP? Just add
calls to using_history, stifle_history, read_history and write_history
in the correct places. 8-)
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Differences in Lisp implementations a hinderance?
Date:
Message-ID: <uvf6qc81w.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> How often is this going to happen, where the tool I need won't work
> under the Lisp I have?
Depends on which tools you happen to be looking for, I guess.
I don't really ever experience this problem. I'm mainly using
Lispworks on Windows (which is my main development environment),
and CMUCL/SBCL on Linux.