...one that won't make me feel three feet thick. Actually, one that has
an integrated IDE on Mac OS X. Lispworks, obviously.
Question: pro or enterprise? Big price difference.
Is Common SQL that much better than Uncommon SQL? Assuming Rucksack is a
tad far over the horizon.
Not sure why I would want ORB. Don't need prolog or KnowledgeWorks.
email replies fine.
kzo
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> ...one that won't make me feel three feet thick.
I think that has more to do with your diet than your Lisp.
Did you get a MacIntel or a PPC Mac? I haven't been keeping up with
how the various Lisps have been doing on MacIntel. I know there is an
experimental SBCL. I think I've seen mention of OpenMCL for Linux. I
am soooo far behind on the openmcl devel list it isn't funny.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport
2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) x 2 Crash & Slider
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
Ken Tilton wrote:
> ...one that won't make me feel three feet thick. Actually, one that has
> an integrated IDE on Mac OS X. Lispworks, obviously.
>
> Question: pro or enterprise? Big price difference.
>
> Is Common SQL that much better than Uncommon SQL? Assuming Rucksack is a
> tad far over the horizon.
>
Though the CLSQL site does not say that it works with OSX, I do not think
there is a obvious reason that it would not. The easiest way to test it is to
download the Personal Edition for the Mac and try it. CLSQL (Uncommon SQL
was rolled into CLSQL) is compatible with CommonSQL.
http://clsql.b9.com/
Wade
> Not sure why I would want ORB. Don't need prolog or KnowledgeWorks.
>
> email replies fine.
>
> kzo
>
Wade Humeniuk wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
> > ...one that won't make me feel three feet thick. Actually, one that has
> > an integrated IDE on Mac OS X. Lispworks, obviously.
> >
> > Question: pro or enterprise? Big price difference.
> >
> > Is Common SQL that much better than Uncommon SQL? Assuming Rucksack is a
> > tad far over the horizon.
> >
>
> Though the CLSQL site does not say that it works with OSX, I do not think
> there is a obvious reason that it would not. The easiest way to test it is to
> download the Personal Edition for the Mac and try it. CLSQL (Uncommon SQL
> was rolled into CLSQL) is compatible with CommonSQL.
I've used CLSQL+Postgres in the past with OSX
(http://bc.tech.coop/blog/050714.html). I think that was with OpenMCL
though.
- Bill
Wade Humeniuk <··················@telus.net> writes:
> CLSQL (Uncommon SQL was rolled into CLSQL) is compatible with
> CommonSQL.
I've only played around with both a little bit, but I did notice that
CLSQL allows this :from clause escape hatch�
(clsql:sql [select [SNAME] [PNAME] [COLOR] [QTY]
:from ["S natural join SP join P using(PNO)"]])
while Common SQL does not. The "symbolic SQL syntax" seems looser and
more tolerant in CLSQL, but that may just be me still misunderstanding
its intended strengths.
Footnotes:
� Using C.J. Date's suppliers-and-parts database.
--
Steven E. Harris
On 2006-05-24 21:09:39 -0500, Wade Humeniuk
<··················@telus.net> said:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> ...one that won't make me feel three feet thick. Actually, one that has
>> an integrated IDE on Mac OS X. Lispworks, obviously.
>>
>> Question: pro or enterprise? Big price difference.
>>
>> Is Common SQL that much better than Uncommon SQL? Assuming Rucksack is
>> a tad far over the horizon.
>>
>
> Though the CLSQL site does not say that it works with OSX, I do not think
> there is a obvious reason that it would not. The easiest way to test it is to
> download the Personal Edition for the Mac and try it. CLSQL (Uncommon SQL
> was rolled into CLSQL) is compatible with CommonSQL.
>
> http://clsql.b9.com/
>
We're developing and deploying on G4/G5 Macs using the following:
* LispWorks 4.4.6
* CLSQL 3.5.3
* MySQL 4.1.16
Only tweak we had to make to our project load:
;; ...
(asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op 'clsql)
;; As per clsql-3.5.3/doc/mysql-macosx-notes.txt
(clsql:push-library-path "/opt/local/lib/mysql/")
;; ...
--
Mike Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>
Ken Tilton wrote:
> ...one that won't make me feel three feet thick. Actually, one that has
> an integrated IDE on Mac OS X. Lispworks, obviously.
So the switch to OS X has forced you to leave ACL and the IDE you used
to praise?
Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>...one that won't make me feel three feet thick. Actually, one that has
>>an integrated IDE on Mac OS X. Lispworks, obviously.
>
>
> So the switch to OS X has forced you to leave ACL and the IDE you used
> to praise?
>
No, I still develop 24x7 with AllegroCL on win32. It is the only way to
fly. Just need something on Mac OS X, too, and for commercial
distribution on both platforms.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
"Jonathon McKitrick" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> ...one that won't make me feel three feet thick. Actually, one that has
>> an integrated IDE on Mac OS X. Lispworks, obviously.
>
> So the switch to OS X has forced you to leave ACL and the IDE you used
> to praise?
It's just because of the IDE, I think ;-)
I am using AllegroCL in the Mactel (as they call it at Franz) version
on a MacBook Pro. Works nice and fast. Albeit without an IDE. Emacs +
Slime is just fine for me. Although I'd like to be able to compare IDE
and Slime some day...
Frank