From: Brandon J. Van Every
Subject: GNU Common Lisp as a porting target
Date: 
Message-ID: <d8hrhm$bln$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>
When looking around at Common Lisp stuff, usually I see CMUCL and SBCL 
support, and rarely do I see GCL support.  Maybe this is owing to what 
I've looked for, but it does seem like a pattern.  So, if something 
works on CMUCL or SBCL, how difficult is it to get working on GCL?  What 
kinds of apps are very difficult to move over?  What kinds are easy?  Is 
there some general reason why GCL doesn't seem to be as popular as CMUCL 
or SBCL?

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

On Usenet, if you're not an open source hippie who
likes to download and play with programming toys
all day long, there's something wrong with you.

From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: GNU Common Lisp as a porting target
Date: 
Message-ID: <esOdncKLUo2Q5zHfRVn-pQ@dls.net>
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> When looking around at Common Lisp stuff, usually I see CMUCL and SBCL 
> support, and rarely do I see GCL support.  Maybe this is owing to what 
> I've looked for, but it does seem like a pattern.  So, if something 
> works on CMUCL or SBCL, how difficult is it to get working on GCL?  What 
> kinds of apps are very difficult to move over?  What kinds are easy?  Is 
> there some general reason why GCL doesn't seem to be as popular as CMUCL 
> or SBCL?

At this time, GCL is not as ANSI compliant as SBCL or CMUCL.

As I understand it, the focus of GCL development has been
more to support a set of important existing lisp applications,
such as ACL2, where GCL delivers markedly better performance
than other lisps: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/v2-9/new.html
Efforts to improve compliance have not stalled, however.

	Paul
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: GNU Common Lisp as a porting target
Date: 
Message-ID: <3h3a89FeurjiU1@individual.net>
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> When looking around at Common Lisp stuff, usually I see CMUCL and SBCL 
> support, and rarely do I see GCL support.  Maybe this is owing to what 
> I've looked for, but it does seem like a pattern.  So, if something 
> works on CMUCL or SBCL, how difficult is it to get working on GCL?  What 
> kinds of apps are very difficult to move over?  What kinds are easy?  Is 
> there some general reason why GCL doesn't seem to be as popular as CMUCL 
> or SBCL?

GCL isn't fully ANSI-compliant. They have announced ANSI compliance for 
version 2.7, so then things could change in this regard. In spite of its 
apparent lack of popularity, a number of software packages run on GCL.

Also note that it doesn't have a logo.


Pascal

-- 
2nd European Lisp and Scheme Workshop
July 26 - Glasgow, Scotland - co-located with ECOOP 2005
http://lisp-ecoop05.bknr.net/
From: Peter Seibel
Subject: Re: GNU Common Lisp as a porting target
Date: 
Message-ID: <m2slznnzm1.fsf@gigamonkeys.com>
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:

> Also note that it doesn't have a logo.

:-)

-Peter

-- 
Peter Seibel           * ·····@gigamonkeys.com
Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/
Practical Common Lisp  * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/