From: gavino
Subject: is clisp practcical?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1154750062.349351.102090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
is it?
From: Nathan Baum
Subject: Re: is clisp practcical?
Date: 
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608050530250.21556@localhost>
On Sat, 4 Aug 2006, gavino wrote:

> is it?

for what?
From: Mallor
Subject: Re: is clisp practcical?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1154836970.907442.57270@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
gavino wrote:
> is it?

It is the best supported open source Common Lisp on Windows, for things
like SLIME and libraries and so forth.  Generally speaking, people use
it and stuff runs on it.  It is an interpreter, and if your problem
domain needs more than an interpreter's performance, then it will be
too slow for you.  But from a support and user community standpoint,
yes it is practical.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
From: Pierre THIERRY
Subject: Re: is clisp practcical?
Date: 
Message-ID: <pan.2006.08.06.11.30.26.549159@levallois.eu.org>
Le Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:02:50 -0700, Mallor a écrit :
> It is the best supported open source Common Lisp on Windows, for
> things like SLIME and libraries and so forth.

As I'm working with SBCL under Linux for apps that I'll deploy under
Windows, what is better in CLisp on Windows, compared to SBCL?

Curiously,
Nowhere man
-- 
···········@levallois.eu.org
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
From: kavenchuk
Subject: Re: is clisp practcical?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1154948938.045778.63280@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> As I'm working with SBCL under Linux for apps that I'll deploy under
> Windows, what is better in CLisp on Windows, compared to SBCL?
>

SBCL has no non-ascii FFI I/O (as consequence - has no non-ascii
pathnames)
SBCL has no (OOB) interface to readline, gettext, iconv (license?) and
some other libraries.
SBCL port for Windows is incomplete.

P.S. You are Welcome to the both projects! :)

-- 
WBR, Yaroslav Kavenchuk.
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: is clisp practcical?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m37j1h5jng.fsf@loiso.podval.org>
> * gavino <········@lnubb.pbz> [2006-08-04 20:54:22 -0700]:
>
> is it?

I have used it in my work for many years.
the latest big project involved multi-gigabyte memory images on
amd64/linux.
(sbcl/cmucl are 32-bit, they could not load the data sets I studied).

despite what others might tell, you CLISP comes with a compiler (it
compiles to byte-code).

heavy float crunching is just about the only area for which I would not
recommend CLISP (unless you write the actual crunching in C and call it
from lisp).

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) on Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux)
http://dhimmi.com http://honestreporting.com http://pmw.org.il
http://iris.org.il http://camera.org http://thereligionofpeace.com
XFM: Exit file manager? [Continue] [Cancel] [Abort]
From: Juho Snellman
Subject: Re: is clisp practcical?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrnedlq57.uku.jsnell@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI>
Sam Steingold <···@podval.org> wrote:
>> * gavino <········@lnubb.pbz> [2006-08-04 20:54:22 -0700]:
>>
>> is it?
> 
> I have used it in my work for many years.
> the latest big project involved multi-gigabyte memory images on
> amd64/linux.
> (sbcl/cmucl are 32-bit, they could not load the data sets I studied).

That's not true. SBCL has had a working x86-64 port (capable of
handling multi-gigabyte images) for over 1.5 years.

-- 
Juho Snellman
From: sds
Subject: Re: is clisp practcical?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1155224208.030308.197030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Juho Snellman wrote:
> Sam Steingold <···@podval.org> wrote:
> >> * gavino <········@lnubb.pbz> [2006-08-04 20:54:22 -0700]:
> >>
> >> is it?
> >
> > I have used it in my work for many years.
> > the latest big project involved multi-gigabyte memory images on
> > amd64/linux.
> > (sbcl/cmucl are 32-bit, they could not load the data sets I studied).
>
> That's not true. SBCL has had a working x86-64 port (capable of
> handling multi-gigabyte images) for over 1.5 years.

Sorry.
The binaries I could find at the time (about a year ago) were all
32-bit.
comp.lang.lisp / 2006 / aug