What lisps, if any, are compiled and play well with VS7.1 (aka Visual Studio
2003) ? Meaning, FFIs to C or C++ are known good, commercial production is
proven and widespread, linkage to MSVCRT71.dll is expected, and using VS7.1
for part of the development is a common practice for that particular lisp
community.
Driving problem: I'm doing commercial 3D game development on Windows. I
believe I will inevitably be sucked into needing to "play well" with VS7.1
for various off-the-shelf 3D engines, importer SDKs, third party commercial
tools, etc.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
- anonymous entrepreneur
My 1st sentence may not have parsed properly. My question: what lisps, if
any, are
- compiled
- play well with VS7.1 (aka Visual Studio 2003)
> Meaning, FFIs to C or C++ are known good, commercial
> production is proven and widespread, linkage to MSVCRT71.dll is
> expected, and using VS7.1 for part of the development is a common
> practice for that particular lisp community.
>
> Driving problem: I'm doing commercial 3D game development on Windows.
> I believe I will inevitably be sucked into needing to "play well"
> with VS7.1 for various off-the-shelf 3D engines, importer SDKs, third
> party commercial tools, etc.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
OpenLisp (www.eligis.com) uses MSVCRT71.dll (as many others)
"Brandon J. Van Every" <·····························@yahoo.com> wrote in
message ····················@individual.net...
> What lisps, if any, are compiled and play well with VS7.1 (aka Visual
> Studio
> 2003) ? Meaning, FFIs to C or C++ are known good, commercial production
> is
> proven and widespread, linkage to MSVCRT71.dll is expected, and using
> VS7.1
> for part of the development is a common practice for that particular lisp
> community.
>
> Driving problem: I'm doing commercial 3D game development on Windows. I
> believe I will inevitably be sucked into needing to "play well" with VS7.1
> for various off-the-shelf 3D engines, importer SDKs, third party
> commercial
> tools, etc.
>
> --
> Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
> Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
>
> "The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
> - anonymous entrepreneur
>
Christian Jullien wrote:
> OpenLisp (www.eligis.com) uses MSVCRT71.dll (as many others)
Costs 6000 euros for commercial use. Ouch! I'll pass. Thanks for
answering my question though.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
- anonymous entrepreneur
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:06:47 -0800, <·····························@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Christian Jullien wrote:
>> OpenLisp (www.eligis.com) uses MSVCRT71.dll (as many others)
>
> Costs 6000 euros for commercial use. Ouch! I'll pass. Thanks for
> answering my question though.
Did anyone mention CormanLisp? Not clear what its current status is
however.
--
Everyman has three hearts;
one to show the world, one to show friends, and one only he knows.
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> What lisps, if any, are compiled and play well with VS7.1 (aka Visual Studio
> 2003) ? Meaning, FFIs to C or C++ are known good, commercial production is
> proven and widespread, linkage to MSVCRT71.dll is expected, and using VS7.1
> for part of the development is a common practice for that particular lisp
> community.
Have a look at ECL (http://ecls.sf.net) There is an actively maintained
port to Microsoft Visual C++ (I believe for versions >= 6.0) contributed
by one of our users. ECL can work as a DLL that you link your program
to, or you can embed your own program in ECL, at wish. Further info at
the mailing list archives.
Juanjo
Juan Jose Garcia Ripoll wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>> What lisps, if any, are compiled and play well with VS7.1 (aka
>> Visual Studio 2003) ? Meaning, FFIs to C or C++ are known good,
>> commercial production is proven and widespread, linkage to
>> MSVCRT71.dll is expected, and using VS7.1 for part of the
>> development is a common practice for that particular lisp community.
>
> Have a look at ECL (http://ecls.sf.net) There is an actively
> maintained
> port to Microsoft Visual C++ (I believe for versions >= 6.0)
> contributed
> by one of our users. ECL can work as a DLL that you link your program
> to, or you can embed your own program in ECL, at wish. Further info at
> the mailing list archives.
I would amend that to "versions == 6.0." There are Makefiles provided for
VC6.0, but that's the last version of VC that supported Makefiles. It would
seem that nobody's using ECL in a modern commercial Windows programming
environment. Thanks for answering my question though.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
- anonymous entrepreneur
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Juan Jose Garcia Ripoll wrote:
>> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>> What lisps, if any, are compiled and play well with VS7.1 (aka
>>> Visual Studio 2003) ? Meaning, FFIs to C or C++ are known good,
>>> commercial production is proven and widespread, linkage to
>>> MSVCRT71.dll is expected, and using VS7.1 for part of the
>>> development is a common practice for that particular lisp community.
>>
>> Have a look at ECL (http://ecls.sf.net) There is an actively
>> maintained
>> port to Microsoft Visual C++ (I believe for versions >= 6.0)
>> contributed
>> by one of our users. ECL can work as a DLL that you link your program
>> to, or you can embed your own program in ECL, at wish. Further info
>> at the mailing list archives.
>
> I would amend that to "versions == 6.0." There are Makefiles
> provided for VC6.0, but that's the last version of VC that supported
> Makefiles. It would seem that nobody's using ECL in a modern
> commercial Windows programming environment. Thanks for answering my
> question though.
Apologies again for a superficial, but in broad terms probably correct
analysis. What I thought were Makefiles are actually NMAKE files. Windows
developers typically name NMAKE files with a *.mak extension. The files
instead were named "Makefile.msvc6" which threw me off. Running NMAKE under
VC7.1, lotsa stuff compiles, but there are link errors. These are fixed
with NODEBUG=1, as per an e-mail in the archives.
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=6389454&forum_id=1307
The need for NODEBUG=1 is not documented in the source distribution. I
believe these minor schisms are indicative of little commercial Windows
development. Also I see few references to "Windows" in the mailing list
archive. Those I do see, often have a MinGW or UNIX flavor to them.
The NODEBUG=1 build is chugging along without errors, albeit plenty of minor
warnings. Given this, I will hazard a guess that ECL could be used for
commercial VC7.1 work, even if it's not much happening at present. I would
expect rough spots somewhere due to lack of monkey-banging, however.
Interestingly, I saw a post by a guy who wants to embed ECL into the Torque
3D engine.
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=10762007
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
- anonymous entrepreneur
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>>Juan Jose Garcia Ripoll wrote:
>>
>>>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>>
>>>>What lisps, if any, are compiled and play well with VS7.1 (aka
>>>>Visual Studio 2003) ? Meaning, FFIs to C or C++ are known good,
>>>>commercial production is proven and widespread, linkage to
>>>>MSVCRT71.dll is expected, and using VS7.1 for part of the
>>>>development is a common practice for that particular lisp community.
>>>
>>>Have a look at ECL (http://ecls.sf.net) There is an actively
>>>maintained
>>>port to Microsoft Visual C++ (I believe for versions >= 6.0)
>>>contributed
>>>by one of our users. ECL can work as a DLL that you link your program
>>>to, or you can embed your own program in ECL, at wish. Further info
>>>at the mailing list archives.
>>
>>I would amend that to "versions == 6.0." There are Makefiles
>>provided for VC6.0, but that's the last version of VC that supported
>>Makefiles. It would seem that nobody's using ECL in a modern
>>commercial Windows programming environment. Thanks for answering my
>>question though.
>
> Apologies again for a superficial, but in broad terms probably correct
> analysis. What I thought were Makefiles are actually NMAKE files. Windows
> developers typically name NMAKE files with a *.mak extension. The files
> instead were named "Makefile.msvc6" which threw me off. Running NMAKE under
> VC7.1, lotsa stuff compiles, but there are link errors. These are fixed
> with NODEBUG=1, as per an e-mail in the archives.
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=6389454&forum_id=1307
> The need for NODEBUG=1 is not documented in the source distribution. I
> believe these minor schisms are indicative of little commercial Windows
> development. Also I see few references to "Windows" in the mailing list
> archive. Those I do see, often have a MinGW or UNIX flavor to them.
Sorry if I sound picky but I find it extremely impolite that you make
assumptions about ECL's userbase from the source code and furthermore
that you spread them in public forums.
ECL is being used in commercial projects and the MSVC port has been
contributed by people who develop their own special-purpose embedded
language for Windows using Microsoft Visual Studio. Indeed development
in ECL is being sped up in the last time thanks to third party
contributions.
It is not a commercial project and as such you will find "rough" edges.
If you want information about the MSVC port, write an email to the
mailing list and you'll get answers from informed people. If you find
problems with the latest version of VC, write also to the list and we
will try to solve the problems.
Regards,
Juanjo
Juan Jose Garcia Ripoll wrote:
>
> Sorry if I sound picky but I find it extremely impolite that you make
> assumptions about ECL's userbase from the source code and furthermore
> that you spread them in public forums.
Name your NMAKE files *.mak like a good little Windows developer, put in a
README for VS7.1, including the magical NODEBUG=1 option. Then we'll talk.
I've been over gazillions of open source projects, and I know what goose
goes with what sauce. To tell me that VS7.1 is well trodden ground with you
guys is silly.
> It is not a commercial project and as such you will find "rough"
> edges.
> If you want information about the MSVC port, write an email to the
> mailing list and you'll get answers from informed people. If you find
> problems with the latest version of VC, write also to the list and we
> will try to solve the problems.
Yes, I'm sure you'll be very helpful to anyone with such questions. My
purpose, at per my original post, is to identify "best of breed" VS7.1
support. You aren't it. I believe your stuff is probably quite usable
under VS7.1, but I do not believe your code is being stress tested by many
VS7.1 users. I think this pronouncement was / is entirely fair. Any
rudeness you're receiving now is simply a reflection of your own prickly
indignity.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Juan Jose Garcia Ripoll wrote:
>
>>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>
>>>What lisps, if any, are compiled and play well with VS7.1 (aka
>>>Visual Studio 2003) ? Meaning, FFIs to C or C++ are known good,
>>>commercial production is proven and widespread, linkage to
>>>MSVCRT71.dll is expected, and using VS7.1 for part of the
>>>development is a common practice for that particular lisp community.
>>
>>Have a look at ECL (http://ecls.sf.net) There is an actively
>>maintained
>>port to Microsoft Visual C++ (I believe for versions >= 6.0)
>>contributed
>>by one of our users. ECL can work as a DLL that you link your program
>>to, or you can embed your own program in ECL, at wish. Further info at
>>the mailing list archives.
>
>
> I would amend that to "versions == 6.0." There are Makefiles provided for
> VC6.0, but that's the last version of VC that supported Makefiles. It would
> seem that nobody's using ECL in a modern commercial Windows programming
> environment. Thanks for answering my question though.
>
ECL is a volunteer based project. So is CLisp. Making it play nicely
with Microsoft stuff (after having pondered the intricaies of the MSDN)
requires such a volunteer.
Otherwise you wil have to fork out money for one of the commercial
vendors. Franz, Lispworks or Corman. Check out the ALU site for
pointers. www.alu.org.
Cheers
--
Marco