I was looking for a free lisp interpreter for Windows platform.
The only ones I could find were only trial versions.....
So can you help me out............................
83 wrote:
> I was looking for a free lisp interpreter for Windows platform.
> The only ones I could find were only trial versions.....
> So can you help me out............................
>
Use the AllegroCL Trial version. By the time you know enough to exceed
its limits you will realize it is worth the price.
If you really really want free, try CLisp.
kt
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> 83 wrote:
> > I was looking for a free lisp interpreter for Windows platform.
> > The only ones I could find were only trial versions.....
> > So can you help me out............................
> >
>
> Use the AllegroCL Trial version. By the time you know enough to exceed
> its limits you will realize it is worth the price.
Worth the price for commercial use (I have a copy) but pretty much out
of reach for the home/hobbyist who wants to write shareware or
freeware utilities or games for fun.
Remember that recent thread-from-hell about CL, C++, and games, and if
Lisp is so good, why aren't there any games written in it? It's
partly because Joe Programmer can't afford get a copy to play with at home
*that allows him to write and sell or give away anything*. (Although there
is Corman Lisp, I have had limited success with it. I had some little
programs I wrote for ACL/CMU that I tried to port to Corman; there was
much chokage and spewing of strange error messages on my macrology.)
If you could get ACL or LW for an amount that is reasonable to a
casual hobbyist, with rights to sell your apps, I say stuff written in
Lisp would start popping up all over the place. People keep hearing
about how great Lisp is, then perhaps they even investigate and get
intrigued, then they look at what's available that would compare to a,
say, visual studio and there's nothing they can use. The trial versions
are useless for this.
Jock Cooper wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>>Use the AllegroCL Trial version. By the time you know enough to exceed
>>its limits you will realize it is worth the price.
>
>
> Worth the price for commercial use (I have a copy) but pretty much out
> of reach for the home/hobbyist who wants to write shareware or
> freeware utilities or games for fun.
Not out of reach: As Kenny said, many people spend plenty of money on
their other hobbies. How much does your average hobbyist game developer
spend on a graphics card? But software's perceived value is low -- many
people who have no problem spending $800 on a digital camera whose
marginal cost of production is under $100 won't pay comparably for software.
> Remember that recent thread-from-hell about CL, C++, and games, and if
> Lisp is so good, why aren't there any games written in it? It's
> partly because Joe Programmer can't afford get a copy to play with at home
> *that allows him to write and sell or give away anything*.
I agree that this is probably true.
> If you could get ACL or LW for an amount that is reasonable to a
> casual hobbyist, with rights to sell your apps, I say stuff written in
> Lisp would start popping up all over the place.
Maybe. But what would happen to the vendors? The last company I can
think of to make a go of low margin development tools was Borland. Lots
of developers loved their $99 Pascal and Delphi packages. Where's
Borland now? (OK, I just checked: Looks like they're in business, but
lost $40MM in 2003) Microsoft gives away tools, Sun gives away tools,
even IBM, I think, and not out of altruism.
Can you point to some successful developer tools companies with low
margin business models? If not, I think your business advice is
tantamount to counseling suicide.
I agree that better tools for cheap would provide a short term bounce
for Lisp. But how would that play out long term?
If you want cheap tools for Windows, I think the most effective way
would be to find developers to help port CMUCL.
Jock Cooper wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>83 wrote:
>>
>>>I was looking for a free lisp interpreter for Windows platform.
>>>The only ones I could find were only trial versions.....
>>>So can you help me out............................
>>>
>>
>>Use the AllegroCL Trial version. By the time you know enough to exceed
>>its limits you will realize it is worth the price.
>
>
> Worth the price for commercial use (I have a copy) but pretty much out
> of reach for the home/hobbyist who wants to write shareware or
> freeware utilities or games for fun.
Have you spoke to Franz about how big a royalty they would want on
freeware? They might be reasonable. :)
>
> Remember that recent thread-from-hell about CL, C++, and games, and if
> Lisp is so good, why aren't there any games written in it? It's
> partly because Joe Programmer can't afford get a copy to play with at home
> *that allows him to write and sell or give away anything*. (Although there
> is Corman Lisp, I have had limited success with it. I had some little
> programs I wrote for ACL/CMU that I tried to port to Corman; there was
> much chokage and spewing of strange error messages on my macrology.)
>
> If you could get ACL or LW for an amount that is reasonable to a
> casual hobbyist,...
I believe they are all still in the mode "for serious developers only"
since (until recently) there just wasn't enough Lisp mindshare to
produce interesting revenues from casual hobbyists. Perhaps this will
change as Lisp continues to take over the world.
You know, back in Jan '99 I dipped my toes in ALlegroCL by snagging a
$500 personal edition. Uncrippled, I mean. That went away at some point,
probably for a reason.
>.. with rights to sell your apps,...
Lispworks has that. But you said "casual hobbyist". I spend $800 for
items in my hobbies (speedskating, photography, snowboarding, computers)
but I guess the language market has been ruined by free languages.
I think vendors should stay in the stratosphere. These trial versions
rock, and should be enough to let people discover a good Lisp IDE is
worth $800. (I would dis Slime, but then the Yobbos would come crashing
in here and kill me.)
> I say stuff written in
> Lisp would start popping up all over the place. People keep hearing
> about how great Lisp is, then perhaps they even investigate and get
> intrigued, then they look at what's available that would compare to a,
> say, visual studio and there's nothing they can use.
Then we are even. When I look at Visual Studio I do not see anything I
can use. :)
kt
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> I think vendors should stay in the stratosphere. These trial versions
> rock, and should be enough to let people discover a good Lisp IDE is
> worth $800. (I would dis Slime, but then the Yobbos would come crashing
> in here and kill me.)
The way you worded it here, you just gave SLIME a huge compliment. You
said it's worth $800, but it can be had for free. Or were you going to
claim that SLIME is missing some feature?
Anyway, the IDE is a small part of what you're paying for with the
commercial lisps. (Especially since ACL doesn't always come with one.)
There's this compiler thing in there, too, and a few useful libraries
and extensions to the language.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> Lispworks has that. But you said "casual hobbyist". I spend $800 for
> items in my hobbies (speedskating, photography, snowboarding,
> computers) but I guess the language market has been ruined by
> free languages.
Franz is noticeably growing. They seem to be doing quite fine.
Of course, we must keep in mind they use NDAs, so we can't make many
serious analysis about their business realities. Because they're
secretive entities by nature.
But as a suspicion, free software isn't the big issue confronting
Franz/Lispworks. Those companies are out of the mainstream and have
different problems than Microsoft. Right now, free software is probably
their ally.
> I think vendors should stay in the stratosphere. These trial versions
> rock, and should be enough to let people discover a good Lisp IDE is
> worth $800. (I would dis Slime, but then the Yobbos would come
crashing
> in here and kill me.)
Well, there are certainly issues with Slime, and the fact I like it
doesn't change how difficult Emacs can be. But there are also issues
with commercial IDEs. When I started up Lispworks to test something,
there were all these weird nameless buttons on top that did
God-knows-what. And no scroll-wheel support.
Lispworks's IDE probably is good for its goals; I don't know.
But when asked about what's a good tool for newbies, I point Python out
to them. (And I mention people are different, so Common Lisp would have
been the correct answer for me personally. But most likely the best
answer today is Python. One thing they do is be fairly honest about
their influences, so curious people won't be too far away from Lisp.)
MfG,
Tayssir
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Well, there are certainly issues with Slime, and the fact I like it
> doesn't change how difficult Emacs can be. But there are also issues
> with commercial IDEs. When I started up Lispworks to test something,
> there were all these weird nameless buttons on top that did
> God-knows-what. And no scroll-wheel support.
When I run Lispworks (on Windows), there are no buttons without labels
on the top of the screen. Actually, there are no buttons at all.
There is a standard sort of menubar with: Works, File, Tools, Window, and Help.
In those menus you find things like: Editor, Function Call Browser, Inspector,
Class Browser, Process Browser, Profiler, Options, etc. There are window tabs,
initally there's: Listener (which is what you start in) and Output.
So I don't know what you're talking about there.
It's true that the mouse scroll wheel doesn't work (at least in the
slightly outdated version of Lispworks that I have). I was surprised
that I had never noticed this in all these years, but I guess I just
never use the mouse for scrolling in Emacs! (The Lispworks IDE is
an Emacs-style interface, with the addition of buttons and windows.)
By the way, they've made a bunch of improvements and added more
features in the IDE the recent releases (but I don't have that yet).
>>>>> "CCS" == Christopher C Stacy <······@news.dtpq.com> writes:
[...]
CCS> When I run Lispworks (on Windows), there are no buttons
CCS> without labels on the top of the screen. Actually, there are
CCS> no buttons at all.
There's a toolbar with icons and button on it below the menu bar.
Maybe you configured yours away? I think that's the one he meant. Those
confuse me too, but I am also confused by the supposedly
easy-to-understand icons on European household appliances. So I'd
always figured it was just me.
[...]
CCS> It's true that the mouse scroll wheel doesn't work (at least
CCS> in the slightly outdated version of Lispworks that I have).
Works in 4.4 (in Windows at least).
I
CCS> was surprised that I had never noticed this in all these
CCS> years, but I guess I just never use the mouse for scrolling
CCS> in Emacs! (The Lispworks IDE is an Emacs-style interface,
CCS> with the addition of buttons and windows.)
I've had a scroll-wheel mouse for at least 4-5 months now but hadn't
noticed. A client did however. A new release came to the rescue just
in time (works in CAPI too, obviously).
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> >>>>> "CCS" == Christopher C Stacy <······@news.dtpq.com> writes:
> [...]
> CCS> When I run Lispworks (on Windows), there are no buttons
> CCS> without labels on the top of the screen. Actually, there are
> CCS> no buttons at all.
>
> There's a toolbar with icons and button on it below the menu bar.
> Maybe you configured yours away? I think that's the one he meant.
Mine doesn't have that, and I don't think I turned them off.
I bet they were added in a more recent release of Lispworks.
(I am using LWW 4.1; the current release is 4.4 or something.)
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:04:12 GMT, Christopher C. Stacy
<······@news.dtpq.com> wrote:
> It's true that the mouse scroll wheel doesn't work (at least in the
> slightly outdated version of Lispworks that I have). I was surprised
> that I had never noticed this in all these years, but I guess I just
> never use the mouse for scrolling in Emacs! (The Lispworks IDE is
> an Emacs-style interface, with the addition of buttons and windows.)
>
> By the way, they've made a bunch of improvements and added more
> features in the IDE the recent releases (but I don't have that yet).
The mouse-wheel support should be available in their newest version.
The personal version (of the newest release) hasn't been released yet
but should be available in the first quarter of this year.
In the mean time there is a program mousewheel available from Microsoft
that maps VM_MOUSEWHEEL events to VM_HSCROLL (or something like that)
that I use. There is still no Drag and Drop support though.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
In article <··············@jcooper02.sagepub.com>,
Jock Cooper <·····@mail.com> wrote:
>
> If you could get ACL or LW for an amount that is reasonable to a
> casual hobbyist, with rights to sell your apps, I say stuff written in
> Lisp would start popping up all over the place.
Amen to that Sir.
Damo
>>>>> "JC" == Jock Cooper <·····@mail.com> writes:
[...]
JC> Remember that recent thread-from-hell about CL, C++, and
JC> games, and if Lisp is so good, why aren't there any games
JC> written in it? It's partly because Joe Programmer can't
JC> afford get a copy to play with at home *that allows him to
JC> write and sell or give away anything*.
This is so if Joe Programmer only uses or cares about windows.
[...]
JC> If you could get ACL or LW for an amount that is reasonable to
JC> a casual hobbyist, with rights to sell your apps, I say stuff
JC> written in Lisp would start popping up all over the place.
Maybe. Lisp under linux has been has been high quality and available
for a good while now, did this happen? (Actually it did, but in
libraries not in small applications.)
JC> People keep hearing about how great Lisp is, then perhaps they
JC> even investigate and get intrigued, then they look at what's
JC> available that would compare to a, say, visual studio and
JC> there's nothing they can use. The trial versions are useless
JC> for this.
How much is Visual Studio now? I seem to remember paying maybe about
$400 for VC++ 6.0. Lispworks can be had for a bit more than US$1k for
the first time and gets cheaper thereafter. I don't think I would
have paid for either had the numbers not worked out for the projects I
used them in. But I don't use windows normally so I probably am not
the kind of person you had in mind. (I went from
CP/M->Lispms/Unix->linux) Is there a magic price point where what you
wish will happen? (less than $100?)
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:
> [...]
> How much is Visual Studio now? I seem to remember paying maybe about
> $400 for VC++ 6.0. Lispworks can be had for a bit more than US$1k
> for the first time and gets cheaper thereafter. I don't think I
> would have paid for either had the numbers not worked out for the
> projects I used them in. But I don't use windows normally so I
> probably am not the kind of person you had in mind. (I went from
> CP/M->Lispms/Unix->linux) Is there a magic price point where what you
> wish will happen? (less than $100?)
>
> cheers,
>
> BM
Visual Studio, if you want the Professional package which comes with
support for many, many languages, costs around $700 right now, but
there is also the single-language version which costs around $90 at the
moment. If you don't care about .Net and just want to code C or C++,
you'd pay $90 and be able to do so and have the right to sell your
programs etc.
Personally, I use Visual Studio .Net 2002 Academic, which is exactly
like the professional version with the single restriction that I can
only use it as long as I'm a student. For $100, I got access to a
C/C++, C#, VB.Net, etc IDE and compiler. I still have rights to sell
the programs, give them away, or whatever else I want, as long as I'm a
student. There are no stack size restrictions, no NDAs, nothing but a
nice environment and compiler to go with it.
I'd definitely say the price needs to be $100 or lower for students at
the very least but preferably for every hobbyist. $100 is pretty much
the magic cutoff point for me - right now I'd be working on creating my
own hardware in an FPGA if not for the magic cutoff - I can either
spend $100 and get good hardware and a really buggy environment or good
software and hardware that doesn't have anything to help in the way of
learning.
Corman Lisp comes close with the $125 student version, but its still
$25 too much and I have no idea what kind of EULA it has. Really, I
think that right now even $100 is way too much for any of the trials
I've tried, as their IDE is simply not user friendly. If all I wanted
was something that was powerful, I could use a emacs with some nice
scripts, but as a beginner I really want to find something that is user
friendly with the ability to support more complex things as I need them
and I don't find that in modern Lisp IDEs for Windows. In this reguard,
Lisp is a lot like Linux - its a great thing at its core(Kernal,
Standard), but that doesn't mean much because a lot of important
details handled by other people (Linux software and the Lisp IDEs) just
weren't done right IMO (at least not if they want more people entering
their domain).
PS: To reply via email, include "comp.lang.lisp"(w/ or w/o quotes) in
the subject or the mail will be automatically deleted.
-Extrarius
On 12 Jan 2005 13:50:28 -0800, "83" <················@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was looking for a free lisp interpreter for Windows platform.
That's "compiler", not "interpreter."
- Corman Lisp is free for personal, non-commercial use, only the use
of the IDE is limited.
- CLISP is completely free.
- ECL is completely free.
- The trial versions of AllegroCL and LispWorks are great and offer
almost everything the full versions offer except for application
delivery and some heap limits.
If you want to learn Lisp get one of the commercial trial versions.
If you want to deploy programs commercially buy one of the commercial
versions. If none of this is good enough for you get CLISP or ECL.
HTH,
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
83 wrote:
> I was looking for a free lisp interpreter for Windows platform.
> The only ones I could find were only trial versions.....
> So can you help me out............................
While you will need to check carefully on the limitations in the
various `Trial' or `Student' versions available, you will find
that they are not limited in the ways you might use them while
learning the language. In particular, so far as I am aware, they
are not time limited so that they rime out after some limited
period. The Lisp vendors want to grow the user community, not
annoy it...
"Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> While you will need to check carefully on the limitations in the
> various `Trial' or `Student' versions available, you will find
> that they are not limited in the ways you might use them while
> learning the language. In particular, so far as I am aware, they
> are not time limited so that they rime out after some limited
> period. The Lisp vendors want to grow the user community, not
> annoy it...
Um? Last I checked, the free version of LW times out after
4 hours of each session. (Maybe it's 5 hours.)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:47:18 GMT, Gareth McCaughan
<················@pobox.com> wrote:
> "Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> While you will need to check carefully on the limitations in the
>> various `Trial' or `Student' versions available, you will find
>> that they are not limited in the ways you might use them while
>> learning the language. In particular, so far as I am aware, they
>> are not time limited so that they rime out after some limited
>> period. The Lisp vendors want to grow the user community, not
>> annoy it...
>
> Um? Last I checked, the free version of LW times out after
> 4 hours of each session. (Maybe it's 5 hours.)
>
Indeed. It warns you after four hours and bails out after 5.
But you can always just restart LW.
I think what he means is it does not permanently shut down after a month
the way some shareware does.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:47:18 GMT, Gareth McCaughan
> <················@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> >
> >> While you will need to check carefully on the limitations in the
> >> various `Trial' or `Student' versions available, you will find
> >> that they are not limited in the ways you might use them while
> >> learning the language. In particular, so far as I am aware, they
> >> are not time limited so that they rime out after some limited
> >> period. The Lisp vendors want to grow the user community, not
> >> annoy it...
> >
> > Um? Last I checked, the free version of LW times out after
> > 4 hours of each session. (Maybe it's 5 hours.)
> >
>
> Indeed. It warns you after four hours and bails out after 5.
> But you can always just restart LW.
> I think what he means is it does not permanently shut down after a month
> the way some shareware does.
Ah. In that case: the free edition of ACL (again, last
time I looked) stops working after a month or some such
period. Franz have made it easy to renew the licence,
though.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:50:28 -0800, 83 wrote:
> I was looking for a free lisp interpreter for Windows platform. The only
> ones I could find were only trial versions..... So can you help me
> out............................
Why not just install cygwin with clisp? You can probably install SBCL and
maybe CMUCL under cygwin as well, but I know clisp works. You can also
install emacs (either under cygwin or the windows version). I've done this
before when I didn't have access to a 'nix box. Its all free and not
limited in any way (except Windows).
-Jeff
Jeff <·······@cunningham.net> writes:
[...]
> Why not just install cygwin with clisp? You can probably install
> SBCL and maybe CMUCL under cygwin as well, but I know clisp
> works. You can also install emacs (either under cygwin or the
> windows version). I've done this before when I didn't have access to
> a 'nix box. Its all free and not limited in any way (except
> Windows).
There's also Lisp in a Box: <http://common-lisp.net/project/lispbox/>.
(I haven't tried it, but presumably it works?) Two lisps for the
price of one, of course, because it comes with Emacs.
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:10:41 -0800, Jeff <·······@cunningham.net> wrote:
> You can probably install SBCL and maybe CMUCL under cygwin as well
Nope.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz escreveu:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:10:41 -0800, Jeff <·······@cunningham.net> wrote:
>
>
>>You can probably install SBCL and maybe CMUCL under cygwin as well
>
>
> Nope.
>
Can we say 'still no'?
--
Cesar Rabak
Cesar Rabak <······@acm.org> writes:
> Edi Weitz escreveu:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:10:41 -0800, Jeff <·······@cunningham.net> wrote:
>>
>>>You can probably install SBCL and maybe CMUCL under cygwin as well
>> Nope.
>>
>
> Can we say 'still no'?
It will never run under cygwin unless someone finds a good stash of
interesting drugs. There's no need to do a non-native port now that we
have native ports in progress for both. In fact, two independent ones
for CMUCL.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:10:41 -0800, Jeff <·······@cunningham.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:50:28 -0800, 83 wrote:
>
>> I was looking for a free lisp interpreter for Windows platform. The only
>> ones I could find were only trial versions..... So can you help me
>> out............................
>
> Why not just install cygwin with clisp? You can probably install SBCL and
> maybe CMUCL under cygwin as well, but I know clisp works. You can also
> install emacs (either under cygwin or the windows version). I've done
> this
> before when I didn't have access to a 'nix box. Its all free and not
> limited in any way (except Windows).
>
> -Jeff
Cygwin put's a compatabillity layer between the unix tools and
windows and is as slow as molassis.
I have used cygin for years but always prefer the ported
tool if available. They work better and faster.
All of cygwin is also a bit of a overkill if all you want
to runis CLISP. (as i mentioned earlier lisp-in-a-box fits
his requirements nicely.)
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> All of cygwin is also a bit of a overkill if all you want
> to runis CLISP.
you only need all of cygwin to compile clisp, not to run it. i
recently built a 5.6 MB (3 gzip'd) tarball containing clisp (exe +
memory image) and the essential cygwin dlls. i've copied it onto a few
(5) windows machines and it has run without a hitch.
if you want instructions just ask.
--
-Marco
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget the perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
-Leonard Cohen
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:20:45 +0100, <··@bese.it> wrote:
> "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
>
> you only need all of cygwin to compile clisp, not to run it. i
> recently built a 5.6 MB (3 gzip'd) tarball containing clisp (exe +
> memory image) and the essential cygwin dlls. i've copied it onto a few
> (5) windows machines and it has run without a hitch.
>
> if you want instructions just ask.
Ok, I 'ask'.
TIA.
--
Everyman has three hearts;
one to show the world, one to show friends, and one only he knows.