Could someone please explain the practical differences between the two?
Or, which one should I use if I'm learning lisp?
I don't understand what "ANSI Common Lisp Implementation" means exactly.
Can GCL produce binary executables?
Are GCL and Common Lisp the same thing?
Sorry, but I'm confused.
lurker wrote:
> Could someone please explain the practical differences between the two?
> Or, which one should I use if I'm learning lisp?
> I don't understand what "ANSI Common Lisp Implementation" means exactly.
> Can GCL produce binary executables?
> Are GCL and Common Lisp the same thing?
> Sorry, but I'm confused.
I can only cite wikipedia & say 'potato' while others say 'potato'...
K
lurker wrote:
> Could someone please explain the practical differences between the two?
> Or, which one should I use if I'm learning lisp?
> I don't understand what "ANSI Common Lisp Implementation" means exactly.
> Can GCL produce binary executables?
> Are GCL and Common Lisp the same thing?
> Sorry, but I'm confused.
L,
see also:
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/lather-rinse-repeat-a-tour-of-the-repl.html
K
lurker wrote:
> Could someone please explain the practical differences between the two?
> Or, which one should I use if I'm learning lisp?
> I don't understand what "ANSI Common Lisp Implementation" means exactly.
> Can GCL produce binary executables?
> Are GCL and Common Lisp the same thing?
> Sorry, but I'm confused.
CLISP and GCL are names of software packages which implement the Common
Lisp language. There exist a number of others, both open and
proprietary. Check out the "Lisp Resources" section at www.lisp.org.
CLISP and GCL are completely different, unrelated programs. CLISP is an
original implementation which started in the late 1980's. CLISP
compiles to a byte code interpreted by a virtual machine.
GCL is based on an earlier implementation called Kyoto Common Lisp
(KCL); there are other derivatives. One distinguishing feature of the
KCL derivatives is their use of an external C compiler (for instance
GCC) for generating machine code. In most Lisps, when you compile a
function, the work is done within the same process. In the KCL
derivatives, C source code is generated, handed to a C compiler
subprocess, and then the resulting object file is loaded. The advantage
of GCL is speed, due to the native compiling. Other Lisps have native
compiler as well, but the advantage of generating C is easier
portability (well not exactly; the actual advantage is that someone
else has done the porting of the C compiler to your target platform
already, and GCL can piggyback on that effort).
The last time I tried GCL, it wasn't as complete as CLISP, so CLISP
might be better for learning. However, that was some years ago and it's
an active project.
ANSI Common Lisp is the language itself, defined by a document. That
document is called "ANSI X3.226:1994 American National Standard for
Programming Language Common Lisp". The "X3.226" is a document number
and 1994 identifies the revision by year. A document that defines a
programming language is intended for people to read as a guide in
writing a language implementation, and as a guide for writing portable
programs that work across different implementations.
The X3.226 standard was used by Kent Pitman to create a derived work
called the Common LIsp HyperSpec, which presents the content of the
standard in hypertext form.
http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/FrontMatter/index.html
"ANSI Common Lisp" is also the title of a textbook about Lisp written
by Paul Graham, published in 1995.
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> Sorry, but I'm confused.
>
> CLISP and GCL are names of software packages which implement the Common
> Lisp language. There exist a number of others, both open and
> proprietary. Check out the "Lisp Resources" section at www.lisp.org.
>
> CLISP and GCL are completely different, unrelated programs. CLISP is an
> original implementation which started in the late 1980's. CLISP
> compiles to a byte code interpreted by a virtual machine.
>
> GCL is based on an earlier implementation called Kyoto Common Lisp
> (KCL); there are other derivatives. One distinguishing feature of the
> KCL derivatives is their use of an external C compiler (for instance
> GCC) for generating machine code. In most Lisps, when you compile a
> function, the work is done within the same process. In the KCL
> derivatives, C source code is generated, handed to a C compiler
> subprocess, and then the resulting object file is loaded. The advantage
> of GCL is speed, due to the native compiling. Other Lisps have native
> compiler as well, but the advantage of generating C is easier
> portability (well not exactly; the actual advantage is that someone
> else has done the porting of the C compiler to your target platform
> already, and GCL can piggyback on that effort).
>
> The last time I tried GCL, it wasn't as complete as CLISP, so CLISP
> might be better for learning. However, that was some years ago and it's
> an active project.
>
> ANSI Common Lisp is the language itself, defined by a document. That
> document is called "ANSI X3.226:1994 American National Standard for
> Programming Language Common Lisp". The "X3.226" is a document number
> and 1994 identifies the revision by year. A document that defines a
> programming language is intended for people to read as a guide in
> writing a language implementation, and as a guide for writing portable
> programs that work across different implementations.
>
> The X3.226 standard was used by Kent Pitman to create a derived work
> called the Common LIsp HyperSpec, which presents the content of the
> standard in hypertext form.
> http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/FrontMatter/index.html
>
> "ANSI Common Lisp" is also the title of a textbook about Lisp written
> by Paul Graham, published in 1995.
Thanks for the detailed reply.
I am no longer confused about this.
lurker wrote:
> Could someone please explain the practical differences between the two?
> Or, which one should I use if I'm learning lisp?
> I don't understand what "ANSI Common Lisp Implementation" means exactly.
ANSI Common Lisp is a language specification. More specifically, it is
_only_ a specification. That is, it is _only_ a text that tells you how
programs written in ANSI Common Lisp are supposed to behave. ANSI Common
Lisp can be used by programmers to check whether they are using the
language correctly, and it can be used by people who want to implement
Common Lisp itself what they are supposed to do.
There exist several concrete Common Lisp implementations. See
http://www.cl-user.net/asp/tags/implementations for a list of known
Common Lisp implementations.
Newbies sometimes think that CLisp is a proper abbreviation for Common
Lisp the language, as specified by ANSI Common Lisp. However, one of the
Common Lisp implementations is actually called clisp. See
http://clisp.cons.org/ for its homepage. So it's strongly advisable not
to use CLisp as an abbreviation when you actually mean Common Lisp as
the family of all Common Lisp implementations. A much better and widely
used abbreviation for this purpose is CL.
The implementation clisp is distributed under the GPL - the GNU Public
License. That's why it says GNU CLISP on their homepage. However, clisp
is not the official Common Lisp implementation of the GNU project. The
latter is simply called GNU Common Lisp, often abbreviated as GCL. See
http://www.gnu.org/software/gcl/ for the homepage of the latter. So GNU
CLISP and GNU Common Lisp are indeed two different implementations of
ANSI Common Lisp.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Am 18.11.2006 22:40 Uhr schrieb "Pascal Costanza" unter <··@p-cos.net> in
··············@mid.individual.net:
> lurker wrote:
>> Could someone please explain the practical differences between the two?
>> Or, which one should I use if I'm learning lisp?
>> I don't understand what "ANSI Common Lisp Implementation" means exactly.
>
> ANSI Common Lisp is a language specification. More specifically, it is
> _only_ a specification. That is, it is _only_ a text that tells you how
> programs written in ANSI Common Lisp are supposed to behave.
I hope it doesn't try to do that. ;-)
The ANSI CL spec tries to describe in (mostly) prose what the
ANSI Common Lisp constructs are, what they should do and gives some
additional information.
> ANSI Common
> Lisp can be used by programmers to check whether they are using the
> language correctly, and it can be used by people who want to implement
> Common Lisp itself what they are supposed to do.
>
> There exist several concrete Common Lisp implementations.
>See
> http://www.cl-user.net/asp/tags/implementations for a list of known
> Common Lisp implementations.
Some of them do implement ANSI CL only partially. Some of them
(WCL for example) are implementing a Common Lisp that is pre-ANSI-CL
(-> CLtL1, CLtL2).
This directory entry looks a bit funny.
Generic ANSI Common Lisp is an implementation? Or a language?
PRION Consulting looks a bit random there.
"Frank Buss' hardware interpreter" has some connection to Common Lisp? Does
it do anything useful?
Just for the fun: I guess there are twenty or more other (often obscure
and/or outdated) implementations of something like CL: Medley CL, TI CL,
Exper Common Lisp, Codemist CL, Genera, Poplog, Procyon CL, CLiCC, BBN
Butterfly CL, PowerLisp, Delphi Common Lisp, L, EusLisp, Rutgers Common
Lisp, TAO, Utah Common Lisp, S-1 Common Lisp, Tachyon Common Lisp,
Transputer Common Lisp, Spur Lisp, TOP-1 Common Lisp, ...
Also: KCL, IBUKI Common Lisp, AKCL, Lucid CL, Coral CL, MACL, Xerox CL, ...
Not counting Xlisp, ThinLisp, Alisp, ...
;-)
Quite interesting: http://community.computerhistory.org/scc/projects/LISP/
>
> Newbies sometimes think that CLisp is a proper abbreviation for Common
> Lisp the language, as specified by ANSI Common Lisp. However, one of the
> Common Lisp implementations is actually called clisp. See
> http://clisp.cons.org/ for its homepage. So it's strongly advisable not
> to use CLisp as an abbreviation when you actually mean Common Lisp as
> the family of all Common Lisp implementations. A much better and widely
> used abbreviation for this purpose is CL.
>
> The implementation clisp is distributed under the GPL - the GNU Public
> License. That's why it says GNU CLISP on their homepage. However, clisp
> is not the official Common Lisp implementation of the GNU project. The
> latter is simply called GNU Common Lisp, often abbreviated as GCL. See
> http://www.gnu.org/software/gcl/ for the homepage of the latter. So GNU
> CLISP and GNU Common Lisp are indeed two different implementations of
> ANSI Common Lisp.
>
>
> Pascal
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
> The implementation clisp is distributed under the GPL - the GNU Public
> License. That's why it says GNU CLISP on their homepage. However,
> clisp is not the official Common Lisp implementation of the GNU
> project. The latter is simply called GNU Common Lisp, often
> abbreviated as GCL. See http://www.gnu.org/software/gcl/ for the
> homepage of the latter. So GNU CLISP and GNU Common Lisp are indeed
> two different implementations of ANSI Common Lisp.
Neither GNU CLISP nor GNU Common Lisp is _the_ official Common Lisp
implementation of the GNU project. However, I believe that both GNU
CLISP and GNU Common Lisp are part of the GNU project: see
<http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/>. (Searching through the archives of
this newsgroup reveals that this has been discussed here before, too).
Christophe
lurker schrieb:
> Could someone please explain the practical differences between the two?
> Or, which one should I use if I'm learning lisp?
> I don't understand what "ANSI Common Lisp Implementation" means exactly.
> Can GCL produce binary executables?
> Are GCL and Common Lisp the same thing?
> Sorry, but I'm confused.
Common Lisp is a language. C++ is a language.
CLisp is an implementation for Common Lisp. In C++ terms one could say
"compiler".
What Borland C++, Watcom C++ or MS Visual C++ are for the language C++
are CLisp and GCL for Common Lisp.
Andr�
--
lurker wrote:
> Could someone please explain the practical differences between the two?
> Or, which one should I use if I'm learning lisp?
> I don't understand what "ANSI Common Lisp Implementation" means exactly.
> Can GCL produce binary executables?
> Are GCL and Common Lisp the same thing?
> Sorry, but I'm confused.
Anyway, lisp is an ideal. In the end learning lisp means implementing it
yourself.
Mark
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 04:02:19 +0100, nvt <···@nvt.nl> wrote:
> lurker wrote:
>> Could someone please explain the practical differences between the two?
>> Or, which one should I use if I'm learning lisp?
>> I don't understand what "ANSI Common Lisp Implementation" means exactly.
>> Can GCL produce binary executables?
>> Are GCL and Common Lisp the same thing?
>> Sorry, but I'm confused.
>
> Anyway, lisp is an ideal. In the end learning lisp means implementing it
> yourself.
>
> Mark
People have been known to use Lisp to do real work as well.
CL is not a language that never made it out of academia.
Reimplementing Lisp in order to learn it is not necessary.
Using it helps..
Allegro CL has Allegro Cache for persistent storage
of object's. On to of that you have Allegro Graph which can read RDF
files. (Resource Definition Framework)
It is the fastest RDF processor out there. Good for mapping complex
semantic
relation's. So think Police, Intelligence, Library, Gene sequencing...
An example of where Lisp is being applied today is in
bio-informatics.
ACL can be set up as a servlet and collaborate in a Java framework
under Tomcat for example..
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/