Hi, ALL
I tried to compile SBCL-0.8.9 with WIN32 patches (by Alastair
Bridgewater) and finally had done it (got EXE which didn't claim about
memory), but without core file (some errors during bootstraping?). I
don't know much about SBCL internals and my programming skills are
certainly not enough for helping to make port better. Yesterday I read
"The Best of Finding Lisp, 2005" and saw link to "completion of a port
of SBCL to Windows"
(http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/jesnellm/blog/archive/2005-12-11.html).
There was binaries of preliminary SBCL-0.9.6 port to WIN32. Very good
news! I downloaded binaries and tried to test SBCL on some of my files.
It really works. With some bugs, but works.
I want to support these guys that work on WIN32 ports (both SBCL and
CMUCL) at least with many thanks. They should know that there are many
(I hope) WIN32 users which would be very appreciate for their efforts
to bring these Lisp implementations to Windows platform.
And finally there is a question:
How many lispers wants to have SBCL (CMUCL) implementation on Windows ?
It must be good opportunity to gain even more popularity because of
good performance of compiled code. For example, with completion of SBCL
WIN32 port I can show to my friend C++ programmer how Lisp can have
performance comparable to automatically optimized C++ code. These
people were interested in learning more about Common Lisp, but they
constanly heard that Lisp is not fast enough and I couldn't show them
high Lisp performance on Windows because of lack of optimizing Common
Lisp compilers for WIN32 platform. Somebody in c.l.l. said that "SBCL
port to WIN32 would be a gameover". I hope it would be a start of new
interesting game!
Regards
Lisper
"Lisper" <···········@mail.ru> wrote in message
····························@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, ALL
>
> I tried to compile SBCL-0.8.9 with WIN32 patches (by Alastair
> Bridgewater) and finally had done it (got EXE which didn't claim about
> memory), but without core file (some errors during bootstraping?). I
> don't know much about SBCL internals and my programming skills are
> certainly not enough for helping to make port better. Yesterday I read
> "The Best of Finding Lisp, 2005" and saw link to "completion of a port
> of SBCL to Windows"
> (http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/jesnellm/blog/archive/2005-12-11.html).
> There was binaries of preliminary SBCL-0.9.6 port to WIN32. Very good
> news! I downloaded binaries and tried to test SBCL on some of my files.
> It really works. With some bugs, but works.
>
> I want to support these guys that work on WIN32 ports (both SBCL and
> CMUCL) at least with many thanks. They should know that there are many
> (I hope) WIN32 users which would be very appreciate for their efforts
> to bring these Lisp implementations to Windows platform.
>
> And finally there is a question:
> How many lispers wants to have SBCL (CMUCL) implementation on Windows ?
> It must be good opportunity to gain even more popularity because of
> good performance of compiled code. For example, with completion of SBCL
> WIN32 port I can show to my friend C++ programmer how Lisp can have
> performance comparable to automatically optimized C++ code. These
> people were interested in learning more about Common Lisp, but they
> constanly heard that Lisp is not fast enough and I couldn't show them
> high Lisp performance on Windows because of lack of optimizing Common
> Lisp compilers for WIN32 platform. Somebody in c.l.l. said that "SBCL
> port to WIN32 would be a gameover". I hope it would be a start of new
> interesting game!
>
> Regards
> Lisper
>
I'm presently learning Lisp on a Windows box.
I'm finding Lispbox with CLisp 2.37 is really very good, but I would prefer
to use an alternative implementation to do serious development work.
Bear in mind that I am still learning, but my understanding is that CLisp
has the following issues:
1. It is implemented as a byte code compiler so that performance is
sub-optimal.
2. It doesnt support multi-threading.
3. It uses a GPL license.
I believe that SBCL (for instance) does not have any of the above issues.
So I think that porting SBCL and/or CMUCL to Windows would be immensely
useful.
Tony
Melbourne, Australia
>
> 3. It uses a GPL license.
>
I fail to see the problem? Even if you don't like the GPL, it is just
CLISP that is under that license, not the stuff you develop on it.
Perhaps you confuse running on it with linking against?
On 21 Jan 2006 12:41:01 -0800, "Leif Dyvik" <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> I fail to see the problem? Even if you don't like the GPL, it is
> just CLISP that is under that license, not the stuff you develop on
> it. Perhaps you confuse running on it with linking against?
It is not as simple as you think. See "Note" here:
<http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/clisp/clisp/COPYRIGHT>
Cheers,
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
"Karol Skocik" <············@gmail.com> writes:
> Hmm... Wasn't Paul Graham's Viaweb done using CLISP? Where can I get
> the source? ;))
If no-one has ever given you the binaries of Paul Graham's Viaweb,
then you have no automatic right to the sources.
Christophe
Karol Skocik wrote:
> Hmm... Wasn't Paul Graham's Viaweb done using CLISP? Where can I get
> the source? ;))
wikipedia says it was developed with clisp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLISP
but looks like not the shop system itself, but only the shop editor. Take a
look at the bottom of this page:
http://www.findinglisp.com/blog/archives/2004_11_01_archive.html
| Last week, I talked a bit with Paul Graham about Viaweb's architecture.
| The important items are (some of which have been reported by Paul in his
| various essays [here, and here]):
| Only the store editor was written in Lisp. The rest was basically C. This
| means that only direct Viaweb customers (merchants) actually used the Lisp
| portion of things.
| Once a merchant got the site design the way they wanted it, the system
| generated the HTML for what was basically a static web site with some CGI
| hooks. End customers interacted with this. All dynamism at the time of
| final presentation (the shopping cart) was done using old-school
| fork-and-exit CGI written in C.
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
On 21.01.2006 08:44, Tony wrote:
> "Lisper" <···········@mail.ru> wrote in message
> ····························@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I'm presently learning Lisp on a Windows box.
> I'm finding Lispbox with CLisp 2.37 is really very good, but I would prefer
> to use an alternative implementation to do serious development work.
>
> Bear in mind that I am still learning, but my understanding is that CLisp
> has the following issues:
>
> 1. It is implemented as a byte code compiler so that performance is
> sub-optimal.
> 2. It doesnt support multi-threading.
> 3. It uses a GPL license.
which is a + to me - okok i do not want to start a discussion on that,
but i have substitute-issue
3. the help system is inferior
Ciao,
Bernd
--
https://gna.org/projects/mipisti - (microscope) picture stitching
T_a_k_e__c_a_r_e__o_f__y_o_u_r__R_I_G_H_T_S.
P_r_e_v_e_n_t__L_O_G_I_C--P_A_T_E_N_T_S
http://www.ffii.org, http://www.nosoftwarepatents.org