ABLE is an open source Common Lisp IDE. It runs on Linux and Windows
with either CLISP or SBCL.
ABLE can be downloaded from http://phil.nullable.eu/
Version 0.4 moves evaluation out of the IDE process/image into an
'inferior Lisp'. Windows compatibility is slightly improved and SBCL
compatibility has also received some attention (alas, using SBCL on
Windows still crashes pretty quickly). Some usability tweaks have also
slipped in.
Over 3 users worldwide can't be wrong...
--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
On Aug 29, 11:59 pm, ···············@gmail.com wrote:
> ABLE is an open source Common Lisp IDE. It runs on Linux and Windows
> with either CLISP or SBCL.
>
> ABLE can be downloaded fromhttp://phil.nullable.eu/
>
> Version 0.4 moves evaluation out of the IDE process/image into an
> 'inferior Lisp'. Windows compatibility is slightly improved and SBCL
> compatibility has also received some attention (alas, using SBCL on
> Windows still crashes pretty quickly). Some usability tweaks have also
> slipped in.
>
> Over 3 users worldwide can't be wrong...
>
> --
> Philhttp://phil.nullable.eu/
Phill may I give you a friendly advice since you decided to support
windows.
Windows users are discusted to build anything from source unless
somebody point something like this http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Ground/m84-carl-gustav.jpg
at their head and they're absolutely sure that it's loaded and the
other guy will blow them up.
So assuming there is not too much work for you if you make a bundle of
able and sbcl that i could install or unzip and click to start it
under windows xp your userbase will grow for at least 33.33333% .
If you make something that could deliver those juicy 25mb sbcl exe
than you should start thinking going commercial.
cheers
bobi
On 30 Aug, 08:54, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 29, 11:59 pm, ···············@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > ABLE is an open source Common Lisp IDE. It runs on Linux and Windows
> > with either CLISP or SBCL.
Thanks for your reply bobi.
> Windows users are discusted to build anything from source unless
> somebody point something like
Couple of comments here. Firstly, you don't have to build anything.
You can of course compile the source if you wish but it's not
essential. One of the things on my todo list is to conditionally
compile the files on first load but I need to stop being lazy and ask
on here for the recommended practice for this. Secondly, I did provide
a fully self contained Windows binary for 0.3 (even including a single
file TCL/TK) but this time I haven't. The reasons are numerous but
include:
- I don't run Windows so it's a bit tricky for me to build for
Windows.
- I compiled to .exe with CLISP but people wanted to use SBCL.
- According to my logs there was still a 10:1 ratio of people
downloading the src to the binary.
- I don't have a lot of webspace/bandwidth so those huge SBCL
downloads hurt me.
There are fairly detailed instructions in the README for getting up
and running on Windows. I guess if that's too much for people to go
through then I'll have to look at binary distributions again but these
will be with CLISP (see below for why).
> So assuming there is not too much work for you if you make a bundle of
> able and sbcl that i could install or unzip and click to start it
> under windows xp your userbase will grow for at least 33.33333% .
I can't seem to get ABLE to run reliably under SBCL on Windows. It
works well with CLISP on Windows and it works well with both CLISP and
SBCL on Linux. But it crashes on Windows with SBCL. As I don't have
free-time access to a Windows machine this hasn't been looked into
closely but I will try to in the future (although I don't have a lot
of money to throw away on an operating system right now, I'd hoped
those days were long over for me!).
> If you make something that could deliver those juicy 25mb sbcl exe
> than you should start thinking going commercial.
I appreciate the comment but I'm not quite so ambitious! My aim was to
write something free for the people (like myself) who were asking "I
don't understand emacs but I like DrScheme but would prefer to program
in CL. Is there anything available?" Now I'm not saying I'm even close
to DrScheme which is a lovely program but this is more what I'm aiming
for.
--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
···············@gmail.com writes:
> - I don't have a lot of webspace/bandwidth so those huge SBCL
> downloads hurt me.
This should not be a problem anymore in 2007. Why not host it at
sourceforge or google code?
S.
On 30 Aug, 09:39, Stefan Arentz <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> ···············@gmail.com writes:
> > - I don't have a lot of webspace/bandwidth so those huge SBCL
> > downloads hurt me.
>
> This should not be a problem anymore in 2007. Why not host it at
> sourceforge or google code?
>
> S.
Because hosting it at Sourceforge won't make it run reliably on
Windows nor will it provide me with a free copy of Windows on which to
do my testing. But yes, in the future this is a good idea. Thanks.
--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
···············@gmail.com writes:
> On 30 Aug, 09:39, Stefan Arentz <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ···············@gmail.com writes:
> > > - I don't have a lot of webspace/bandwidth so those huge SBCL
> > > downloads hurt me.
> >
> > This should not be a problem anymore in 2007. Why not host it at
> > sourceforge or google code?
> >
> > S.
>
> Because hosting it at Sourceforge won't make it run reliably on
> Windows nor will it provide me with a free copy of Windows on which to
> do my testing.
Indeed. But I was only responding to your bandwidth complaint. Not
sure why you bring up your issues with Windows when we talk about
hosting the project.
S.
On 30 Aug, 10:46, Stefan Arentz <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> ···············@gmail.com writes:
> > On 30 Aug, 09:39, Stefan Arentz <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ···············@gmail.com writes:
> > > > - I don't have a lot of webspace/bandwidth so those huge SBCL
> > > > downloads hurt me.
>
> > > This should not be a problem anymore in 2007. Why not host it at
> > > sourceforge or google code?
>
> > > S.
>
> > Because hosting it at Sourceforge won't make it run reliably on
> > Windows nor will it provide me with a free copy of Windows on which to
> > do my testing.
>
> Indeed. But I was only responding to your bandwidth complaint. Not
> sure why you bring up your issues with Windows when we talk about
> hosting the project.
>
> S.
As I said, your idea is a good one and one that I've had myself in the
last few months. So thanks for bringing it up.
But my point is one of priorities. There isn't a great deal of point
in me moving the project just to provide a broken executable for
Windows users. The problem with SBCL on Windows needs to be dealt with
first.
I'm not sure what the problem is but it seems strange that the code
works fine with the same compiler on a different platform and a
different compiler on the same platform. But people seem keen to use
SBCL on Windows so I guess it is something I need to look into.
--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
I already have full CYGWIN installed on my machine, except Perl and
Python (we use the non-cygwin Perl's and Python's).
It works as a charm, starts automatically a "wish84.exe", which would be
a TCL something, that LTK uses, and then it just works.
It looks really cool. The TCL/TK controls do look native, and maybe they
are? (Have to spy++ them).
Probably if you find some mini tcl/wish84 distribution, just adding that
to the ABLE folder would do it.
Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> On Aug 29, 11:59 pm, ···············@gmail.com wrote:
>> ABLE is an open source Common Lisp IDE. It runs on Linux and Windows
>> with either CLISP or SBCL.
>>
>> ABLE can be downloaded fromhttp://phil.nullable.eu/
>>
>> Version 0.4 moves evaluation out of the IDE process/image into an
>> 'inferior Lisp'. Windows compatibility is slightly improved and SBCL
>> compatibility has also received some attention (alas, using SBCL on
>> Windows still crashes pretty quickly). Some usability tweaks have also
>> slipped in.
>>
>> Over 3 users worldwide can't be wrong...
>>
>> --
>> Philhttp://phil.nullable.eu/
>
> Phill may I give you a friendly advice since you decided to support
> windows.
> Windows users are discusted to build anything from source unless
> somebody point something like this http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Ground/m84-carl-gustav.jpg
> at their head and they're absolutely sure that it's loaded and the
> other guy will blow them up.
> So assuming there is not too much work for you if you make a bundle of
> able and sbcl that i could install or unzip and click to start it
> under windows xp your userbase will grow for at least 33.33333% .
> If you make something that could deliver those juicy 25mb sbcl exe
> than you should start thinking going commercial.
>
> cheers
> bobi
>
On Aug 29, 2:59 pm, ···············@gmail.com wrote:
> ABLE is an open source Common Lisp IDE. It runs on Linux and Windows
> with either CLISP or SBCL.
I haven't had time to look at this much, and don't know that I will
soon, but I'm glad to see people doing this kind of thing. While I'm
a long-time Emacs user myself, it seems that there are a significant
number of people who would like to try Common Lisp but are not
interested in Emacs (at least, not yet); so I think it's good to
remove that barrier.
-- Scott