Well, it seems SBCL for Windows is on its way:
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/jesnellm/blog/archive/2005-12-11.html
--
Web: http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- IRC: stesch @ freenode
Stefan Scholl wrote:
> Well, it seems SBCL for Windows is on its way:
> http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/jesnellm/blog/archive/2005-12-11.html
>
"Kitten of Death" - very nice.
BA
#######################################################
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
(C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.
C:\>cd \installs\sbcl
C:\Installs\SBCL>sbcl
This is SBCL 0.9.6, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp.
More information about SBCL is available at <http://www.sbcl.org/>.
SBCL is free software, provided as is, with absolutely no warranty.
It is mostly in the public domain; some portions are provided under
BSD-style licenses. See the CREDITS and COPYING files in the
distribution for more information.
os_map: 3, 0x1000, 01000000, 0x1000.
os_map: 3, 0x2000, 05000000, 0x1000.
os_map: 3, 0x3000, 09000000, 0x17ce000.
Your Kitten of Death awaits!
*
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:33:32 +0100, Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de>
tried to confuse everyone with this message:
>Well, it seems SBCL for Windows is on its way:
>http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/jesnellm/blog/archive/2005-12-11.html
Hmm...
C:\SBCL\sbcl-win32-0.9.6-binaries>sbcl
validation of reserved space too short.
VirtualAlloc: No error
ensure_space: failed to validate 41938944 bytes at 0x01000000
(hint: Try "ulimit -a"; maybe you should increase memory limits.)
--
|a\o/r|,-------------.,---------- Timofei Shatrov aka Grue ------------.
| m"a ||FC AMKAR PERM|| mail: grue at mail.ru http://grue3.tripod.com |
| k || PWNZ J00 || Kingdom of Loathing: Grue3 lvl 18 Seal Clubber |
`-----'`-------------'`-------------------------------------------[4*72]
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:33:32 +0100, Stefan Scholl wrote:
> Well, it seems SBCL for Windows is on its way:
> http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/jesnellm/blog/archive/2005-12-11.html
This was announced in several places over a year ago.
http://lemonodor.com/archives/000858.html
Just this past March Carl Shapiro announced that he had almost completed
a port of CMUCL, and that it would have already been released if not for
ILC.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/f0e61f93a30da883/e8c117d8671b8c25?lnk=st&q=cmucl+win32+shapiro+group%3Acomp.lang.lisp&rnum=6&hl=en#e8c117d8671b8c25
Well ILC came and went months ago. Several times I replied to several of
his posts asking what the status was, but he never replied. I suspect
since I do not check the group out often that he simply hasn't seen
any of them. So I posted something with his name asking about CMUCL on
Win32. What happens? I get a lot of nasty replies. What happened? No reply
from Carl, but lots of nasty ones, including one from a moron who claim I
used a fake email address ( nope, valid mail alias ala AddressGuard a
sneakeail clone provided by my ISP , though I may delete the alias soon, I
am starting to get a lot of spam to it ). I've taken the morons advice and
sent him an email. No reply yet.
If you look at the post it says that Alastar worked on it two years ago
then let the work slip. I suspect this time he will move his stuff up to
the latest version and then do a quarter maybe a half of what's left,
then drop it again for a couple of years.
By the time a port of SBCL or CMUCL to Win32 will be close to a real
possiblity, I suspect that a 64 bit version Windows will be so near to
have taken over the Windows niche that they will decide to poirt it
directly to that.
olczyk wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:33:32 +0100, Stefan Scholl wrote:
>
> > Well, it seems SBCL for Windows is on its way:
> > http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/jesnellm/blog/archive/2005-12-11.html
>
> This was announced in several places over a year ago.
> http://lemonodor.com/archives/000858.html
>
Wrong. Those announcements were about an earlier release that, IIRC,
was still missing a lot of functionality (something to do with SBCL
using signals for errors on UNIX). What's being discussed now is an
updated version that doesn't have those issues and is, in addition,
compatible with the latest SBCL.
>
> Just this past March Carl Shapiro announced that he had almost completed
> a port of CMUCL, and that it would have already been released if not for
> ILC.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/f0e61f93a30da883/e8c117d8671b8c25?lnk=st&q=cmucl+win32+shapiro+group%3Acomp.lang.lisp&rnum=6&hl=en#e8c117d8671b8c25
>
> Well ILC came and went months ago. Several times I replied to several of
> his posts asking what the status was, but he never replied. I suspect
> since I do not check the group out often that he simply hasn't seen
> any of them. So I posted something with his name asking about CMUCL on
> Win32. What happens? I get a lot of nasty replies. What happened? No reply
> from Carl, but lots of nasty ones, including one from a moron who claim I
> used a fake email address ( nope, valid mail alias ala AddressGuard a
> sneakeail clone provided by my ISP , though I may delete the alias soon, I
> am starting to get a lot of spam to it ). I've taken the morons advice and
> sent him an email. No reply yet.
>
> If you look at the post it says that Alastar worked on it two years ago
> then let the work slip. I suspect this time he will move his stuff up to
> the latest version and then do a quarter maybe a half of what's left,
> then drop it again for a couple of years.
>
> By the time a port of SBCL or CMUCL to Win32 will be close to a real
> possiblity, I suspect that a 64 bit version Windows will be so near to
> have taken over the Windows niche that they will decide to poirt it
> directly to that.
Why not do it yourself then, rather than criticizing folks who
*volunteered* to port it and who made significant progress toward that
end?
Bill
I don't think he is compliaing about SBCL win32 port, the port is gift
from heaven, I think he is complaining about how the porting progress
went in general.
I think the reason people come and nagging about the progress of the
port is not because they don't appreciate the effort of Mr.
Bridgewater. It is that because the process of the port have been
unknown.
You don't see how thing is going for win32-port in SBCL mailing list.
Months ago, when you knew that he was able to get the cold image up,
all you saw was a screen shot, no patch, no source code. Are we talking
about some proprietary software demo here?
Most people don't go nagging about how thing is going with
Mcclim/Slime/UCW here, because if they want to know about it they can
go on and see at common-lisp.net. If the development is stale or only
one commit a month, so be it, but at least I know it.
In the open source community like this, you don't have to do all the
work yourself and only release the perfect one in the end. Just show
the buggy one and let the product spin itself. You should view the fact
that someone asking about the progress of the port as the indicator
that the porting is asking to be viewed by the public.
Surely, even if win32-port has a project page in sourceforge, I won't
do any single commit because I probably don't know enough to help. But
I know that every open source project has public repository available
for any one interested. I don't think I'll be happy if UCW said that
their great web framework is on the way and just show the screen shot
without any, even buggy, thing to try out.
Having the public project and other wizards could have help submitting
patch and stuff.
It will also be less work for him. Less people come to c.l.l ask about
the status of the port. Once in blue moon, someone might point out a
typo/missing in the patch.
Anyway, I saw from #lisp that they are reviewing to make the port more
stable and then commit it to CVS. That's good news to hear. I expect
that once the port is in public repos, things will move faster. And
less people will be asking for progress.
I don't think anyone doubt the amount of contribution Mr. Bridgewater
made to Lisp community. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone find
that it is ridiculous to be viewed as a troll when all he did was
asking for a progress of some closed port that was supposed to be open.
Cheers,
"Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> You don't see how thing is going for win32-port in SBCL mailing list.
> Months ago, when you knew that he was able to get the cold image up,
> all you saw was a screen shot, no patch, no source code. Are we talking
> about some proprietary software demo here?
Alastair's sources for the sbcl-0.8.9 work he did have been available
for approximately ever[1]. Since this is the case, the rest of your
paragraph is nonsense: since there was no extra progress to report,
it's not surprising that there were no other progress reports, beyond
a complete, working tarball.
> I don't think anyone doubt the amount of contribution Mr. Bridgewater
> made to Lisp community. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone find
> that it is ridiculous to be viewed as a troll when all he did was
> asking for a progress of some closed port that was supposed to be open.
"olczyk"'s behaviour in this respect is not trollish; it is simply
obnoxious.
Christophe
[1] <http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search?q=sbcl+0.8.9+windows>
Christophe Rhodes wrote:
> "Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > You don't see how thing is going for win32-port in SBCL mailing list.
> > Months ago, when you knew that he was able to get the cold image up,
> > all you saw was a screen shot, no patch, no source code. Are we talking
> > about some proprietary software demo here?
>
> Alastair's sources for the sbcl-0.8.9 work he did have been available
> for approximately ever[1]. Since this is the case, the rest of your
> paragraph is nonsense: since there was no extra progress to report,
> it's not surprising that there were no other progress reports, beyond
> a complete, working tarball.
>
> > I don't think anyone doubt the amount of contribution Mr. Bridgewater
> > made to Lisp community. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone find
> > that it is ridiculous to be viewed as a troll when all he did was
> > asking for a progress of some closed port that was supposed to be open.
>
> "olczyk"'s behaviour in this respect is not trollish; it is simply
> obnoxious.
>
> Christophe
>
> [1] <http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search?q=sbcl+0.8.9+windows>
My apology for not googling for that source code then. I'm surprised
though; I have been checking planet.lisp, c.l.l and cliki periodically
(like every night) for like a couple year, so I was probably blinded at
the time for not having seen that.
Not taking for "the rest is nonsense" though. I'm not talking
specifically about SBCL-Win32 port, I'm talking about what I think how
this things can happens in general.
If you are starting some cool project, it is usual people will ask to
know about it. So just having a public site or repos up is a good thing
to do. It reduces frustation of both people who like to know how things
go and those who have to answer the question.
Regards,
"Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> Not taking for "the rest is nonsense" though. I'm not talking
> specifically about SBCL-Win32 port, I'm talking about what I think how
> this things can happens in general.
> If you are starting some cool project, it is usual people will ask to
> know about it. So just having a public site or repos up is a good thing
> to do. It reduces frustation of both people who like to know how things
> go and those who have to answer the question.
Right, but not everyone's motivation is the same for starting some
cool project. For instance, I believe (but I haven't heard from the
horse's mouth) that Carl Shapiro's motivation for his own windows
CMUCL port was his own responsibilities at work. Alastair, I believe,
has worked on his SBCL branch because he found it an interesting
challenge. In neither case has the motivation been to accumulate a
cadre either of people to provide either patches or support requests.
For those who don't particularly _want_ to deal with these people,
mailing lists, public source code repositories and the like are
useless overhead.
Christophe
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:21:44 +0000, Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> "olczyk"'s behaviour in this respect is not trollish; it is simply
> obnoxious.
It fits with the rest of his behaviour (like sending "Why Lisp Sucks"
messages to other newsgroups). I wonder why people here still bother
to deal with him.
Cheers,
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
<·············@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you look at the post it says that Alastar worked on it two years ago
> then let the work slip.
No, it doesn't say that.
--
Juho Snellman