Hi all,
I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
learn.
Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
implementation (and environment) for Windows?
I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
thanks
iu2
On 13 Aug, 08:44, iu2 <·······@elbit.co.il> wrote:
> I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
> it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
> CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
> don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
> learn.
> Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
> implementation (and environment) for Windows?
> I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
1. Most people will recommend SLIME which is very powerful. Probably
the best way to start with it is to learn a few important key chords
that do the most regular things you need. This will include some SLIME
specific stuff and some general emacs ones too if you're not familiar
with that.
If you can't get along with SLIME then there are several 'IDE'
options. The commercial Lisp's come with their own which look very
powerful. If you prefer a free software option and you like Eclipse
then CUSP (http://www.paragent.com/lisp/cusp/cusp.htm) is very nice. I
also maintain ABLE (http://phil.nullable.eu/) which is a simple Lisp
IDE. However, the compiled Windows version that I provide is virtually
untested and almost certainly less stable than the Linux / source
version but you could still give it a go.
2. I use LTK (http://www.peter-herth.de/ltk/). It works very well
provided you don't mind Tk (some people do). There are many other
options here; hopefully someone else with knowledge of those can help
out.
--
Phil ; http://phil.nullable.eu/
···············@gmail.com wrote:
> On 13 Aug, 08:44, iu2 <·······@elbit.co.il> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
>>it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
>>CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
>>don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
>>learn.
>>Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
>>implementation (and environment) for Windows?
>>I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
>
>
> 1. Most people will recommend SLIME which is very powerful.
Only because most people are yobbo idiots or their submissive yobbo
wannabes who go to #lisp for the domination experience. SLIME is very
powerful and a joke compared to the IDEs of ACL or LW.
kt
On 13 Aug, 13:39, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
> > 1. Most people will recommend SLIME which is very powerful.
>
> Only because most people are yobbo idiots or their submissive yobbo
> wannabes who go to #lisp for the domination experience. SLIME is very
> powerful and a joke compared to the IDEs of ACL or LW.
I think different people have different tastes and requirements. After
10 years of trying I've conceded defeat with emacs as my brain is
simply not powerful enough. But I can appreciate it's brilliance and
for those who live in it all day, I feel slightly jealous because
they're obviously just that bit more hardcore than I am.
But my inability to use emacs spurred me on to write something that I
found personally useful which in turn meant that I got to start
learning Lisp after years of C++ et al.
Of the two you mention, I've only tried the LW IDE and I must agree
that the OP would be well advised to look at that and ACL too.
--
Phil ; http://phil.nullable.eu/
On Aug 13, 7:39 am, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
> ···············@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 13 Aug, 08:44, iu2 <·······@elbit.co.il> wrote:
>
> >>I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
> >>it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
> >>CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
> >>don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
> >>learn.
> >>Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
> >>implementation (and environment) for Windows?
> >>I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
>
> > 1. Most people will recommend SLIME which is very powerful.
>
> Only because most people are yobbo idiots or their submissive yobbo
> wannabes who go to #lisp for the domination experience. SLIME is very
> powerful and a joke compared to the IDEs of ACL or LW.
>
> kt
I must respectfully disagree. There is a reason ACL comes with
detailed instructions for interfacing to SLIME (see e.g.
http://franz.com/emacs/slime.lhtml ) and LW has built-in support for
using SLIME as an external editor -- and it has nothing to do with
placating the yobbos, who as you so often point out wouldn't even
consider trying either product, much less purchasing them.
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 13, 7:39 am, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>···············@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On 13 Aug, 08:44, iu2 <·······@elbit.co.il> wrote:
>>
>>>>I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
>>>>it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
>>>>CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
>>>>don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
>>>>learn.
>>>>Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
>>>>implementation (and environment) for Windows?
>>>>I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
>>
>>>1. Most people will recommend SLIME which is very powerful.
>>
>>Only because most people are yobbo idiots or their submissive yobbo
>>wannabes who go to #lisp for the domination experience. SLIME is very
>>powerful and a joke compared to the IDEs of ACL or LW.
>>
>>kt
>
>
> I must respectfully disagree.
This is Kenny, here, no need for respect.
> There is a reason ACL comes with
> detailed instructions for interfacing to SLIME (see e.g.
> http://franz.com/emacs/slime.lhtml )
Yes, there is: because their IDE until recently ran only on Windows, and
see below for another good reason. You will know the reason you have in
mind has become the reason when Franz deprecates the IDE to reap the
enormous cost of developing, supporting, and maintaining that. Oh, not
gonna happen? Right. It is a competitive advantage for free
<PWUAHAHAHAHHAAA> Lisps.
> and LW has built-in support for
> using SLIME as an external editor -- and it has nothing to do with
> placating the yobbos
No, it would have something to do with supporting customers, one of
those silly things you get from for-profit enterprises.
Actually, a better reason is /winning/ customers. As some brilliant wag
once noted, a good programmer can learn a new language faster than a new
IDE -- if you want to save refugees from the wastelands of free Lisp,
don't make them climb an IDE wall.
> who as you so often point out wouldn't even
> consider trying either product
I think you have captured the open-mindedness of your typical yobbo
beautifully right there.
kenny
On Aug 13, 8:46 am, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
> > I must respectfully disagree.
>
> This is Kenny, here, no need for respect.
Sure there is. I highly respect the work you've done with Cells.
[snip]
> > and LW has built-in support for
> > using SLIME as an external editor -- and it has nothing to do with
> > placating the yobbos
>
> No, it would have something to do with supporting customers, one of
> those silly things you get from for-profit enterprises.
>
I'm not sure I follow the logic of a customer wanting to use a free
"joke" (your word) environment when they've paid $1,500 or more for
this supposedly vastly superior IDE. But, then again, some people like
what they're used to. Even so, I suspect this speaks more of how much
value they place on SLIME, when they sill want to use it even after
paying a substantial fee for a professional product, than it does of
their unwillingness to learn the new IDE.
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 13, 8:46 am, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>I must respectfully disagree.
>>
>>This is Kenny, here, no need for respect.
>
>
> Sure there is. I highly respect the work you've done with Cells.
I'll believe you when you release your own version. Has to be from
scratch, like all my other "users".
>
> [snip]
>
>>>and LW has built-in support for
>>>using SLIME as an external editor -- and it has nothing to do with
>>>placating the yobbos
>>
>>No, it would have something to do with supporting customers, one of
>>those silly things you get from for-profit enterprises.
>>
>
>
> I'm not sure I follow the logic of a customer wanting to use a free
> "joke" (your word) environment when they've paid $1,500 or more for
> this supposedly vastly superior IDE.
I should have mentioned my rationale: As some brilliant wag once noted,
a good programmer can learn a new language faster than a new IDE -- if
you want to save refugees from the wastelands of free Lisp, don't make
them climb an IDE wall.
Man I am having this wicked deja vu right now!
kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
On Aug 13, 9:44 am, iu2 <·······@elbit.co.il> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
> it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
> CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
> don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
> learn.
> Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
> implementation (and environment) for Windows?
> I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
For an IDE, try the trial versions of Allegro or LispWorks. Don't
worry about the price tags for now. Learn Lisp using the nicest
environment you can get your hands on, and *after* you've gotten
comfortable with the Lisp world you'll be in a good position to make
an educated decision about what Lisp environment you want to use for
your serious work.
As for the GUI, there's Ltk, which is portable and easy, and makes
reasonable looking but not-quite-native applications on Windows (and
the Mac, and Unix). Or you can use the commercial implementation's
GUI toolkit. They both have them, and they both have happy users.
iu2 wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
> it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
> CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
> don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
> learn.
> Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
> implementation (and environment) for Windows?
> I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
>
> thanks
> iu2
This may also be helpful:
http://weitz.de/starter-pack/
iu2 wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
> it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
> CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
> don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
> learn.
> Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
> implementation (and environment) for Windows?
> I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
There are several .NET languages like F#, L# and I think some more Lisp or
Lisp-like languages.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
OCaml for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
(message (Hello 'Jon)
(you :wrote :on '(Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:14:47 +0100))
(
JH> There are several .NET languages like F#, L# and I think some more Lisp
JH> or Lisp-like languages.
could you elaborate on what is L#?
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"choose no life")
Alex Mizrahi escribi�:
> (message (Hello 'Jon)
> (you :wrote :on '(Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:14:47 +0100))
> (
>
> JH> There are several .NET languages like F#, L# and I think some more Lisp
> JH> or Lisp-like languages.
>
> could you elaborate on what is L#?
I see another not-terminating thread coming...
Leandro
Alex Mizrahi wrote:
> (message (Hello 'Jon)
> (you :wrote :on '(Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:14:47 +0100))
> (
>
> JH> There are several .NET languages like F#, L# and I think some more
> Lisp JH> or Lisp-like languages.
>
> could you elaborate on what is L#?
>
> )
> (With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
> "choose no life")
http://www.lsharp.org/
There are actually several other .NET Lisp or Lisp-like languages:
http://weblogs.asp.net/jtobler/archive/2003/10/01/30000.aspx
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dotlisp/
http://foil.sourceforge.net/
http://www.weitz.de/rdnzl/
I would say that the impedance match between the .NET platform and Lisp is
quite good. You might also be interested in OCamIL and SMLNET.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
OCaml for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
On 13 Aug., 10:14, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> iu2 wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
> > it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
> > CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
> > don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
> > learn.
> > Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
> > implementation (and environment) for Windows?
> > I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
>
> There are several .NET languages like F#, L# and I think some more Lisp or
> Lisp-like languages.
>
> --
> Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> OCaml for Scientistshttp://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
>
???
This is complete bullshit and you know that! Why do you reply with
complete bullshit to a newbie?
Hey, I am about to throw my copy of your pathetic OCaml book into the
trash!
-klaus.
In article <························@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
klaus <··········@yahoo.de> wrote:
> On 13 Aug., 10:14, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> > iu2 wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
> > > it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
> > > CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
> > > don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
> > > learn.
> > > Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
> > > implementation (and environment) for Windows?
> > > I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
> >
> > There are several .NET languages like F#, L# and I think some more Lisp or
> > Lisp-like languages.
> >
> > --
> > Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> > OCaml for Scientistshttp://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
> >
>
> ???
> This is complete bullshit and you know that! Why do you reply with
> complete bullshit to a newbie?
> Hey, I am about to throw my copy of your pathetic OCaml book into the
> trash!
>
>
> -klaus.
Why not sell it on ebay and get a good Lisp book instead? ;-)
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
> In article <························@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> klaus <··········@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> > On 13 Aug., 10:14, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> > > iu2 wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
> > > > it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
> > > > CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
> > > > don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
> > > > learn.
> > > > Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
> > > > implementation (and environment) for Windows?
> > > > I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
> > >
> > > There are several .NET languages like F#, L# and I think some more Lisp or
> > > Lisp-like languages.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> > > OCaml for Scientistshttp://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
> > >
> >
> > ???
> > This is complete bullshit and you know that! Why do you reply with
> > complete bullshit to a newbie?
> > Hey, I am about to throw my copy of your pathetic OCaml book into the
> > trash!
> >
> >
> > -klaus.
>
> Why not sell it on ebay and get a good Lisp book instead? ;-)
Probably because _he_ would have to _pay_ someone to take the piece of
S**T...
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
> In article <························@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> klaus <··········@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> On 13 Aug., 10:14, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>> > iu2 wrote:
>> > > Hi all,
>> > > I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
>> > > it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
>> > > CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
>> > > don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
>> > > learn.
>> > > Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
>> > > implementation (and environment) for Windows?
>> > > I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
>> >
>> > There are several .NET languages like F#, L# and I think some more Lisp or
>> > Lisp-like languages.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
>> > OCaml for Scientistshttp://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
>> >
>>
>> ???
>> This is complete bullshit and you know that! Why do you reply with
>> complete bullshit to a newbie?
>> Hey, I am about to throw my copy of your pathetic OCaml book into the
>> trash!
>>
>>
>> -klaus.
>
> Why not sell it on ebay and get a good Lisp book instead? ;-)
Or make a video of you burning it, and then upload to youtube...
In article <··············@RawMBP.local>,
Raymond Wiker <···@RawMBP.local> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
>
> > In article <························@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> > klaus <··········@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On 13 Aug., 10:14, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> >> > iu2 wrote:
> >> > > Hi all,
> >> > > I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
> >> > > it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
> >> > > CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
> >> > > don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
> >> > > learn.
> >> > > Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
> >> > > implementation (and environment) for Windows?
> >> > > I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
> >> >
> >> > There are several .NET languages like F#, L# and I think some more Lisp or
> >> > Lisp-like languages.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> >> > OCaml for Scientistshttp://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
> >> >
> >>
> >> ???
> >> This is complete bullshit and you know that! Why do you reply with
> >> complete bullshit to a newbie?
> >> Hey, I am about to throw my copy of your pathetic OCaml book into the
> >> trash!
> >>
> >>
> >> -klaus.
> >
> > Why not sell it on ebay and get a good Lisp book instead? ;-)
>
> Or make a video of you burning it, and then upload to youtube...
Right, he could get famous - like this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHbrQqrgVgg
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
> In article <··············@RawMBP.local>,
> Raymond Wiker <···@RawMBP.local> wrote:
>
>> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
>>
>> > In article <························@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>> > klaus <··········@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 13 Aug., 10:14, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>> >> > iu2 wrote:
>> >> > > Hi all,
>> >> > > I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
>> >> > > it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
>> >> > > CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
>> >> > > don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
>> >> > > learn.
>> >> > > Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
>> >> > > implementation (and environment) for Windows?
>> >> > > I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
>> >> >
>> >> > There are several .NET languages like F#, L# and I think some more Lisp or
>> >> > Lisp-like languages.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
>> >> > OCaml for Scientistshttp://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> ???
>> >> This is complete bullshit and you know that! Why do you reply with
>> >> complete bullshit to a newbie?
>> >> Hey, I am about to throw my copy of your pathetic OCaml book into the
>> >> trash!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -klaus.
>> >
>> > Why not sell it on ebay and get a good Lisp book instead? ;-)
>>
>> Or make a video of you burning it, and then upload to youtube...
>
> Right, he could get famous - like this guy:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHbrQqrgVgg
Ouch. Did he get any response from Apple?
In article <··············@RawMBP.local>,
Raymond Wiker <···@RawMBP.local> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
>
> > In article <··············@RawMBP.local>,
> > Raymond Wiker <···@RawMBP.local> wrote:
> >
> >> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
> >>
> >> > In article <························@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > klaus <··········@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 13 Aug., 10:14, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> >> >> > iu2 wrote:
> >> >> > > Hi all,
> >> >> > > I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
> >> >> > > it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
> >> >> > > CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
> >> >> > > don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
> >> >> > > learn.
> >> >> > > Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
> >> >> > > implementation (and environment) for Windows?
> >> >> > > I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There are several .NET languages like F#, L# and I think some more Lisp or
> >> >> > Lisp-like languages.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> >> >> > OCaml for Scientistshttp://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> ???
> >> >> This is complete bullshit and you know that! Why do you reply with
> >> >> complete bullshit to a newbie?
> >> >> Hey, I am about to throw my copy of your pathetic OCaml book into the
> >> >> trash!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -klaus.
> >> >
> >> > Why not sell it on ebay and get a good Lisp book instead? ;-)
> >>
> >> Or make a video of you burning it, and then upload to youtube...
> >
> > Right, he could get famous - like this guy:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHbrQqrgVgg
>
> Ouch. Did he get any response from Apple?
Yes. He got a new Macbook from Apple. ;-)
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
klaus wrote:
> On 13 Aug., 10:14, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>> There are several .NET languages like F#, L# and I think some more Lisp
>> or Lisp-like languages.
>
> This is complete bullshit and you know that!
I haven't used any of them but AFAICT they are legit. This one looks better:
http://dotlisp.sourceforge.net/dotlisp.htm
The .NET platform is the future for Microsoft so it seems like good newbie
advice to adopt it sooner rather than later.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
OCaml for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
klaus <··········@yahoo.de> writes:
> On 13 Aug., 10:14, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>> iu2 wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> > I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
>> > it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
>> > CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
>> > don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
>> > learn.
>> > Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
>> > implementation (and environment) for Windows?
>> > I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
>>
Although I don't use them, many people recommend the environments offered
by the commercial lisp vendors, such as allegro and lispworks. I believe
they also offer free trial versions. and have additional libraries and
functionality that extends past the ANSI standard (such as graphics
libraries).
Tim
P.S. Ignore Professor Frog from the Who Gives a Flying Fuck Consultancy or
those who can't manage to ignore him and just have to respond to his
personal agenda pushing rubbish - there just C.l.l's version of the
Hatfields and McCoys.
iu2 <·······@elbit.co.il> writes:
> Hi all,
> I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
> it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
> CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
> don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
> learn.
> Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
> implementation (and environment) for Windows?
> I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
Suggestions:
1. give SLIME another try, it is really useful once you get to know
it. Perhaps you are doing things the wrong way, explaining your
workflow would allow us to help you.
2. Try a commercial IDE, or LispBox:
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/lispbox/
See http://www.cliki.net/Graphics%20Toolkit and
http://www.cliki.net/win32 for info about toolkits.
Tamas
Try Cusp (open source project):
http://www.paragent.com/lisp/cusp/cusp.htm
"Cusp is a development environment for Lisp built on top of the
Eclipse platform. It runs SBCL and hooks into the Swank half of Slime.
It provides a repl, project manager, an outline of your code for
simple navigation, code editor, syntax highlighting, auto-indentation,
parenthesis matching, auto-completion, and more."
SVN version (with most resent build available through eclipse update
site: http://www.sergeykolos.com/cusp/update) also contains starter
pack libraries and easy way to add other libraries (which usually is
real pain on windows).
iu2 wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
> it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
> CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
> don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
> learn.
> Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
> implementation (and environment) for Windows?
> I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
>
> thanks
> iu2
>
If you like Eclipse, you can also try this plugin:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dandelion-ecl
You can choose between SBCL or CLISP (or both!) as your Lisp
environment. The plugin is intended for beginners :)
iu2 wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm new to lisp. I've read quite a lot about this language, but I find
> it difficult to get along with the environment. Currently I use GNU's
> CLISP with or without slime, but I feel quite awkward with it, so I
> don't get to writing real application. I only test short things that I
> learn.
> Can you please recommend me on your preferred Common Lisp
> implementation (and environment) for Windows?
> I also need a descent graphics toolkit with Common Lisp binding.
Windows? I think these are the major contenders:
http://franz.com/downloads/#AllegroCL_Download
http://www.lispworks.com/downloads/index.html
http://www.cormanlisp.com/
- Daniel
Guys, thanks so much for your replies, I really didn't think there
would be so many suggestions.
Since I believe in going from simple to complicated, I think I'll try
the commercial Lisp or eclipse.
One thing bothers me, though: Have I understood you correctly, Kenny,
that free Lisp doesn't worth trying?
iu2 wrote:
> Guys, thanks so much for your replies, I really didn't think there
> would be so many suggestions.
> Since I believe in going from simple to complicated, I think I'll try
> the commercial Lisp or eclipse.
>
> One thing bothers me, though: Have I understood you correctly, Kenny,
> that free Lisp doesn't worth trying?
>
I agree with someone else who said to defer the pain and suffering of
free Lisps at least until after you have gotten hooked on Lisp using
trial versions of commercial software. Then you can decide how little
your time is worth and try to live with a "free" lisp.
kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
Ken Tilton wrote:
> I agree with someone else who said to defer the pain and suffering of
> free Lisps at least until after you have gotten hooked on Lisp using
> trial versions of commercial software. Then you can decide how little
> your time is worth and try to live with a "free" lisp.
What exactly is easier with the commercial Lisps? I've been very happy with
SBCL, although I've never written any production Lisp code. Text prompt, of
course, but everyone knows that IDEs are for girly men.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
OCaml for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
On Aug 14, 9:35 am, iu2 <·······@elbit.co.il> wrote:
> Guys, thanks so much for your replies, I really didn't think there
> would be so many suggestions.
> Since I believe in going from simple to complicated, I think I'll try
> the commercial Lisp or eclipse.
>
> One thing bothers me, though: Have I understood you correctly, Kenny,
> that free Lisp doesn't worth trying?
Yes you understood Kenny correctly. However, that is Kenny's opinion,
which he happens to be very outspoken about, but it is just that: an
opinion. Paul Graham happens to disagree, as evidenced by his use of
CLISP, which is a free Lisp (and is supported on Windows).
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 14, 9:35 am, iu2 <·······@elbit.co.il> wrote:
>
>>Guys, thanks so much for your replies, I really didn't think there
>>would be so many suggestions.
>>Since I believe in going from simple to complicated, I think I'll try
>>the commercial Lisp or eclipse.
>>
>>One thing bothers me, though: Have I understood you correctly, Kenny,
>>that free Lisp doesn't worth trying?
>
>
> Yes you understood Kenny correctly. However, that is Kenny's opinion,
> which he happens to be very outspoken about, but it is just that: an
> opinion. Paul Graham happens to disagree, as evidenced by his use of
> CLISP, which is a free Lisp (and is supported on Windows).
>
Try to keep up, people, OK? PG happens to have wanted to use ACL but
could not come to terms.
kenny
Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 9:35 am, iu2 <·······@elbit.co.il> wrote:
>>
>>>Guys, thanks so much for your replies, I really didn't think there
>>>would be so many suggestions.
>>>Since I believe in going from simple to complicated, I think I'll try
>>>the commercial Lisp or eclipse.
>>>
>>>One thing bothers me, though: Have I understood you correctly, Kenny,
>>>that free Lisp doesn't worth trying?
>> Yes you understood Kenny correctly. However, that is Kenny's opinion,
>> which he happens to be very outspoken about, but it is just that: an
>> opinion. Paul Graham happens to disagree, as evidenced by his use of
>> CLISP, which is a free Lisp (and is supported on Windows).
>>
>
> Try to keep up, people, OK? PG happens to have wanted to use ACL but
> could not come to terms.
Actually, that's not quite true. Paul Graham had wanted to use
Allegro CL, but we were the only ones at the time using Gray Streams,
and that was a major bottlenneck for what he wanted to do. We worked
for quite a while on trying to meet the goals, but we weren't able to
do so and he eventually deployed on Clisp. There's irony for you; we
lost to a byte-coded language because our streams were too slow.
As a followup, the loss caused us to do some soul-searching regarding
the unbending use of Gray streams (everything was a Gray stream, even
the Ansi streams), and it got us to start a project called Simple
Streams, a very fast stream design and implementation that doesn't
have the performance issues that Gray Streams has. Even more
ironically, this was at a time when many other CL implementations were
moving toward Gray Streams. Paul Graham's project was one of our
first introductions into the world of intensive performance in
streams. I think we would have fared much better if the evaluation
had been done today.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig wrote:
> Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
>
>
>>·········@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 14, 9:35 am, iu2 <·······@elbit.co.il> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Guys, thanks so much for your replies, I really didn't think there
>>>>would be so many suggestions.
>>>>Since I believe in going from simple to complicated, I think I'll try
>>>>the commercial Lisp or eclipse.
>>>>
>>>>One thing bothers me, though: Have I understood you correctly, Kenny,
>>>>that free Lisp doesn't worth trying?
>>>
>>>Yes you understood Kenny correctly. However, that is Kenny's opinion,
>>>which he happens to be very outspoken about, but it is just that: an
>>>opinion. Paul Graham happens to disagree, as evidenced by his use of
>>>CLISP, which is a free Lisp (and is supported on Windows).
>>>
>>
>>Try to keep up, people, OK? PG happens to have wanted to use ACL but
>>could not come to terms.
>
>
> Actually, that's not quite true. Paul Graham had wanted to use
> Allegro CL, but we were the only ones at the time using Gray Streams,
I knew it was something. <g>
kenny
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen