On Apr 3, 12:42 pm, ·················@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm really curios since almost all projects come asdf-packed this
> days?
>
> Pet
For CLisp look at Seibel's lisp in a box.
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/lispbox/
A full Lispbox distribtion contains:
-Emacs, the powerful, customizable text editor
-A Common Lisp implementation of your choosing
-SLIME, the Superior Lisp Integration Mode for Emacs
-ASDF, Another System Definition Facility, used to load Common Lisp
libraries.
-The practical code from Practical Common Lisp ready to be loaded
using ASDF.
-Some glue code to make it all a bit easier to use.
Regarding Lispworks , beats me.
cheers
bobi
·················@gmail.com writes:
> I'm really curios since almost all projects come asdf-packed this
> days?
Packaging systems with implementations is a pain in the ass.
Because the version of the packaged systems are not the same from one
implementation to another, or from one implementation to the version
of the system you'll use on another implementation.
It's much better for the implementation to be bare, so you can easily
use the same set of versions of the systems you need on a range of
implementations.
Besides, that's not the job of the _implementors_ to build a
distribution. You don't ask Linus to make you a SuSE or a gentoo.
Linus makes Linux. That's all.
That said, it's a good idea to have "lisp distributions", like we have
"linux distributions", with a kernel (a lisp implementation), and a
packaging system and a set of pre-installed systems. You can even
have variants of the "lisp distribution" using a different kernel,
like Lisp-in-a-Box is provided with either clisp or sbcl, like gentoo
runs on Linux as well as on MacOSX.
We need lisp distribution builders, and competing lisp distributions!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com
http://pjb.ogamita.org
On Apr 3, 4:09 pm, Pascal Bourguignon <····@informatimago.com> wrote:
> ·················@gmail.com writes:
> > I'm really curios since almost all projects come asdf-packed this
> > days?
>
> Packaging systems with implementations is a pain in the ass.
>
> Because the version of the packaged systems are not the same from one
> implementation to another, or from one implementation to the version
> of the system you'll use on another implementation.
>
> It's much better for the implementation to be bare, so you can easily
> use the same set of versions of the systems you need on a range of
> implementations.
>
> Besides, that's not the job of the _implementors_ to build a
> distribution. You don't ask Linus to make you a SuSE or a gentoo.
> Linus makes Linux. That's all.
>
> That said, it's a good idea to have "lisp distributions", like we have
> "linux distributions", with a kernel (a lisp implementation), and a
> packaging system and a set of pre-installed systems. You can even
> have variants of the "lisp distribution" using a different kernel,
> like Lisp-in-a-Box is provided with either clisp or sbcl, like gentoo
> runs on Linux as well as on MacOSX.
>
> We need lisp distribution builders, and competing lisp distributions!
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__http://www.informatimago.comhttp://pjb.ogamita.org
Standardization has it's on benefits especially for the more casual
users.
I have a problem with asdf and i'm basically stucked with Weitz
starter pack
on Lispworks, while i some interesthing libs to install and i'm too
stupid
for emacs.
One of the reasons I dislike Linux(beside GPL) is that there's too
many distributions.
I prefer Pc for Desctop and FreeBSD for the server.
Pet
Hi,
> Standardization has it's on benefits especially for the more casual
> users.
You are confusing Lisp compilers with Lisp development environments
(distributions). A Lisp development environment should include ASDF,
yes. A compiler should not. Look at Lispbox for a nice beginners'
Lisp distribution.
If you want to assemble your own development environment, fine, go
ahead. But don't complain that you have to install all the parts
yourself. You don't go and install the Windows kernel by itself and
then complain that it doesn't include a file manager either, do you?
> and i'm too stupid for emacs.
Ah ha! So you don't want to use Lispbox because of that? Didn't you
just tell us that standardisation is good? There you go: Lispbox
standardises on Emacs. Get over it.
> One of the reasons I dislike Linux(beside GPL) is that there's too
> many distributions.
Linux is not an OS. Debian, for example, is an OS. There's only one
Debian distribution out there, so... What's the problem again?
> I prefer Pc for Desctop
Oh! So you like the much more restrictive Windows EULA better than
the GPL? That's interesting. I wonder why.
(I'm assuming that Windows is what you mean when you say »Pc«. Or is
that PC-BSD? That would make matters way different, of course.)
Matthias
On Apr 3, 6:52 pm, "Matthias Benkard" <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Standardization has it's on benefits especially for the more casual
> > users.
>
> You are confusing Lisp compilers with Lisp development environments
> (distributions). A Lisp development environment should include ASDF,
> yes. A compiler should not. Look at Lispbox for a nice beginners'
> Lisp distribution.
>
> If you want to assemble your own development environment, fine, go
> ahead. But don't complain that you have to install all the parts
> yourself. You don't go and install the Windows kernel by itself and
> then complain that it doesn't include a file manager either, do you?
>
> > and i'm too stupid for emacs.
>
> Ah ha! So you don't want to use Lispbox because of that? Didn't you
> just tell us that standardisation is good? There you go: Lispbox
> standardises on Emacs. Get over it.
>
I tried Lispbox and it's very cool, but emacs is a problem for me
'couse i'm used to "modern" - though idoubt more powerfull editors.
> > One of the reasons I dislike Linux(beside GPL) is that there's too
> > many distributions.
>
> Linux is not an OS. Debian, for example, is an OS. There's only one
> Debian distribution out there, so... What's the problem again?
>
> > I prefer Pc for Desctop
>
> Oh! So you like the much more restrictive Windows EULA better than
> the GPL? That's interesting. I wonder why.
>
> (I'm assuming that Windows is what you mean when you say »Pc«. Or is
> that PC-BSD? That would make matters way different, of course.)
I use both windows and freeBSD,both as desctops and as servers.
Windows has :
1. Drivers for everything that's made on the earth
2. Look pretty good and most important
3. A lot of applications that me and my family use regularly
which i can't find at any OS .(kids want to play games,i know about
wine)
The rest is crup: EULA, insecurity, crushes...
FreeBSD is:
1. Ultimate performance
2. Uptimes counting forever
3. Security
4. Free to get , cheap to operate
5. BSD license
however it has a problems:
1. Needs an expert to install,
(I can't do that , bought all my boxes FreeBSD preinstalled)
2. Some drivers are missing or have problematic quality
(another reason for buying all FreeBSD boxes preinstalled,
supporting vendors who make FreeBSD business is a third one)
3. Tough sale for management, who want standard things
like: Java , Microsoft Server, RHEL, Oracle ...
4. Few applications,
with best regards
Pet
On Apr 3, 10:09 am, Pascal Bourguignon <····@informatimago.com> wrote:
> ·················@gmail.com writes:
> > I'm really curios since almost all projects come asdf-packed this
> > days?
>
> Packaging systems with implementations is a pain in the ass.
True. However, so is not having asdf present by default. The
bootstrapping problem.
> Because the version of the packaged systems are not the same from one
> implementation to another, or from one implementation to the version
> of the system you'll use on another implementation.
In general this is true, but the case of asdf itself I think merits an
exception. If asdf is or can be made to ensure that previous versions
of asdf can update to new versions of asdf, then it would be safe to
include a version with distributions by default. I would hazard a
guess that asdf is the first thing everyone builds into their default
image.
> It's much better for the implementation to be bare, so you can easily
> use the same set of versions of the systems you need on a range of
> implementations.
Sure. But installing almost anything these days requires asdf, and
I'm hoping asdf wouldn't change so drastically as to be a problem for
inclusion. Perhaps the Lisp Machines could offer some hints on
features of asdf that would make it sufficiently future proof that it
would make a logical inclusion.
> Besides, that's not the job of the _implementors_ to build a
> distribution. You don't ask Linus to make you a SuSE or a gentoo.
> Linus makes Linux. That's all.
>
> That said, it's a good idea to have "lisp distributions", like we have
> "linux distributions", with a kernel (a lisp implementation), and a
> packaging system and a set of pre-installed systems. You can even
> have variants of the "lisp distribution" using a different kernel,
> like Lisp-in-a-Box is provided with either clisp or sbcl, like gentoo
> runs on Linux as well as on MacOSX.
I suppose that's true. I should take a closer look at "lisp in a box"
- I had been thinking of it as a training environment which is easy to
get working, but that might be doing an injustice to its potential.
> We need lisp distribution builders, and competing lisp distributions!
To a point. Harming cross platform (in this case lisp implementations
being the platforms) potential without good reason is seldom
profitable. I like the analogy of the Lisp implementation as an OS
kernel - that has merit. Particularly when I think about issues
related to porting software between Unix variations - the analogy is
quite interesting.
From: Peter Seibel
Subject: Re: Why isn't ASDF preinstalled on CLisp and Lispworks?
Date:
Message-ID: <873b3h2obp.fsf@gigamonkeys.com>
"C Y" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> I suppose that's true. I should take a closer look at "lisp in a
> box" - I had been thinking of it as a training environment which is
> easy to get working, but that might be doing an injustice to its
> potential.
"Potential" is the right word. At the moment Lispbox is indeed mostly
an environment for new Lispers. However I've been (slowly) doing a bit
of work toward changing that. Contributions toward that end are
welcome--I've put the code up an Google's code hosting:
<http://code.google.com/p/lispbox/>
so anyone who wants to play around with it is free to do so. Mikel
Evins is doing some work on the Mac version with a goal of making it a
simple dragable .app rather than an installer. My goals are to bring
back the no-Emacs Lispbox that can be easily installed into an
existing Emacs setup and to start adding to the set of libraries that
come with Lispbox.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel : ·····@gigamonkeys.com
Gigamonkeys Consulting : http://www.gigamonkeys.com/