I've installed FreeBSD ( http://www.desktopbsd.net ) and after I get
friendy with it I want do some lisping on it. Unlike on windows seems
that on FreeBSD I'm spoiled of choice . I mainly interested in cl-
muproc ( http://www.mu.dk/cl-muproc ) so my choice is between OpenMCL,
SBCL & CMUCL. Could anybody give me some recommendations of the
relative strengths and weaknesses of these 3 implementations. Things
like easy-to-use, tool (debugger,profiler), user base , maturity and
especially multiprocessing. My only experiences are lispworks personal
and clisp.
thanks in advance
On May 16, 4:28 pm, jt <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've installed FreeBSD (http://www.desktopbsd.net) and after I get
> friendy with it I want do some lisping on it. Unlike on windows seems
> that on FreeBSD I'm spoiled of choice . I mainly interested in cl-
> muproc (http://www.mu.dk/cl-muproc) so my choice is between OpenMCL,
> SBCL & CMUCL. Could anybody give me some recommendations of the
> relative strengths and weaknesses of these 3 implementations. Things
> like easy-to-use, tool (debugger,profiler), user base , maturity and
> especially multiprocessing. My only experiences are lispworks personal
> and clisp.
>
> thanks in advance
FreeBSD isn't popular with lispers ? And sorry for double posting .
From: Christian Haselbach
Subject: Re: Which Lisp on FreeBSD
Date:
Message-ID: <f2hj0t$a85$1@online.de>
jt wrote:
>
> FreeBSD isn't popular with lispers ? And sorry for double posting .
>
Well, I use FreeBSD, but there's not so much I can tell you about lisp
implementations on it. I just use sbcl and it works fine. I installed it
via the ports using portinstall and adding
'lang/sbcl' => 'WITH_THREADS=1
to MAKE_ARGS in pkgtools.conf to have threads, but I'm not sure that it
is still the default to compile it w/o threads.
The sbcl port is up-to-date.
I also installed abcl and ecl using ports, but did not really use them.
If I remember correctly, I couldn't get threads working in ecl, but I
did not look into it.
Regards,
Christian
On Wed, 16 May 2007 07:28:29 -0700, jt wrote:
> I've installed FreeBSD ( http://www.desktopbsd.net ) and after I get
> friendy with it I want do some lisping on it. Unlike on windows seems
> that on FreeBSD I'm spoiled of choice . I mainly interested in cl-
> muproc ( http://www.mu.dk/cl-muproc ) so my choice is between OpenMCL,
> SBCL & CMUCL. Could anybody give me some recommendations of the
> relative strengths and weaknesses of these 3 implementations. Things
> like easy-to-use, tool (debugger,profiler), user base , maturity and
> especially multiprocessing. My only experiences are lispworks personal
> and clisp.
I have no particular experience, and can see from posters to this list
that sbcl, cmucl and clisp are all well used. All of them can readily be
installed with the FreeBSD ports system, and all can be resident
concurrently, so why not just give them a go? (My FreeBSD system has
CLISP and SBCL on it, at the moment...)
Cheers,
--
Andrew
jt <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| I've installed FreeBSD ( http://www.desktopbsd.net ) and after I get
| friendy with it I want do some lisping on it. Unlike on windows seems
| that on FreeBSD I'm spoiled of choice . I mainly interested in cl-
| muproc ( http://www.mu.dk/cl-muproc ) so my choice is between OpenMCL,
| SBCL & CMUCL. Could anybody give me some recommendations...
+---------------
I've been using CMUCL quite happily on FreeBSD & Linux [including
several apps that must run on both!] since 2002 (or before, I forget).
+---------------
| especially multiprocessing.
+---------------
CMUCL doesn't do multiprocessing, even though it has an extension
package of that name. It *does* do multiprogramming, or "green"
threads (within-process coroutines), which are nicely integrated
into the I/O system so that blocking reads in one thread automagically
run other threads (if any). I use it for a production web app [albeit
lightly loaded] that starts a new thread for each HTTP request.
It's *much* more reliable than the operating system underneath it
[though I may have just been lucky].
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
jt wrote:
> I've installed FreeBSD ( http://www.desktopbsd.net ) and after I get
> friendy with it I want do some lisping on it. Unlike on windows seems
> that on FreeBSD I'm spoiled of choice . I mainly interested in cl-
> muproc ( http://www.mu.dk/cl-muproc ) so my choice is between OpenMCL,
> SBCL & CMUCL. Could anybody give me some recommendations of the
> relative strengths and weaknesses of these 3 implementations. Things
> like easy-to-use, tool (debugger,profiler), user base , maturity and
> especially multiprocessing. My only experiences are lispworks personal
> and clisp.
A problem with cmucl (and derived lisps such as sbcl) on FreeBSD is that
it starts to bomb once you change the data segment limit in the kernel
config from the default 512 megs to something larger (a common
configuration) because of the otherworldly memory allocation mechanism
being used in cmucl which makes invalid assumptions on how Things Might
Be. Since you're using Desktop-BSD and aren't "friendly" with it yet, I
assume, you haven't changed the limit and cmucl would run ok but it's
something to plan for in the future (say, if you have developed a cmucl
program that requires more memory, and you increase the limit and - bang!).
Matthias Buelow <···@incubus.de> writes:
>
> A problem with cmucl (and derived lisps such as sbcl) on FreeBSD is that
> it starts to bomb once you change the data segment limit in the kernel
> config from the default 512 megs to something larger (a common
> configuration) because of the otherworldly memory allocation mechanism
> being used in cmucl which makes invalid assumptions on how Things Might
> Be. Since you're using Desktop-BSD and aren't "friendly" with it yet, I
> assume, you haven't changed the limit and cmucl would run ok but it's
> something to plan for in the future (say, if you have developed a cmucl
> program that requires more memory, and you increase the limit and - bang!).
CMUCL can actually use more than 1.5 G of memory in the current
setup. It does not allocate its heap in the data segment. You just
have to give it the "-dynamic-space-size" command line argument.
Changing the data segment limit might be required for other things,
though, and changing its size would screw up CMUCL under FreeBSD. (I
remember having to increase the data segment size in loader.conf for
building Java or something and it making CMUCL not able to run.)
starbot:cmucl > bin/lisp -noinit -dynamic-space-size 1664
CMU Common Lisp CVS 21-Jul-2007 (19D), running on starbot
With core: /beta/homes/fred/cvs/cmucl/lib/lisp.core
Dumped on: Sat, 2007-07-21 23:48:13-07:00 on starbot
Send questions and bug reports to Fred,
or see <http://www.cons.org/cmucl/support.html>.
Loaded subsystems:
Python 1.1, target Intel x86
CLOS based on Gerd's PCL 2004/04/14 03:32:47
* (room)
Dynamic Space Usage: 112,288 bytes (out of 1,664 MB).
Read-Only Space Usage: 21,767,664 bytes (out of 256 MB).
Static Space Usage: 2,935,952 bytes (out of 241 MB).
Control Stack Usage: 484 bytes (out of 128 MB).
Binding Stack Usage: 96 bytes (out of 128 MB).
The current dynamic space is 0.
Garbage collection is currently enabled.
Breakdown for dynamic space:
46,928 bytes for 5,866 cons objects.
39,576 bytes for 997 simple-string-type objects.
13,216 bytes for 267 instance objects.
6,680 bytes for 31 simple-array-unsigned-byte-32-type objects.
6,448 bytes for 799 bignum objects.
14,128 bytes for 1,098 other objects.
126,976 bytes for 9,058 dynamic objects (space total.)
*
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
In the course of making code more readable, performance was
accidentally improved by about 20%. --- From BRL 2.1.23 release notes