Hello all,
I was reading the book Practical Common Lisp, which is available
online. It recommends using Lisp-In-a-Box as an implementation. So, I
picked that up online. There was a problem with the tool, interpreter and
Emacs environment. After installing what I thought was everything, it says
that the tutorial files do not exist. Can anyone suggest a link to get what
is needed to use this along with the Emacs tutorial. It might help to know
this as it is used in other environments/programming languages as well, such
as Prolog.
I'm open to other suggestions for running Lisp on a Windows Vista
(32bit) system.
thanks,
Bruce
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Lisp In a Box for Windows Vista
Date:
Message-ID: <uk5qfcgmp.fsf@agharta.de>
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:43:27 -0400, "Bruce Whealton" <············@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> I'm open to other suggestions for running Lisp on a Windows Vista
> (32bit) system.
Try this:
http://weitz.de/starter-pack/
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
In article <·························@roadrunner.com>,
············@nc.rr.com says...
> Hello all,
> I was reading the book Practical Common Lisp, which is available
> online. It recommends using Lisp-In-a-Box as an implementation. So, I
> picked that up online. There was a problem with the tool, interpreter and
> Emacs environment. After installing what I thought was everything, it says
> that the tutorial files do not exist. Can anyone suggest a link to get what
> is needed to use this along with the Emacs tutorial. It might help to know
> this as it is used in other environments/programming languages as well, such
> as Prolog.
> I'm open to other suggestions for running Lisp on a Windows Vista
> (32bit) system.
> thanks,
> Bruce
You do not want to learn Emacs because you might easily
conclude you do not like Lisp at all, or that you like some
other Lisp IDE. By far the simplest solution to start with
Common Lisp is provided by this cute new product ABLE.
http://phil.nullable.eu/
If it was around when I started, I'd spare alot of time with
that.
Two commercial Lisp's have better IDE's but even these IDE's
require some time to get used to. And then, these two products
in free versions have severe memory limitations so you cannot
use them for much more than demo and experiments that do not
require significant memory use.
The best overall free IDE based solution in Lisp world is
probably PLT Scheme, but then it is not Common Lisp. However,
if you still think in terms of "some Lisp" and not Common Lisp,
consider this too.
Hi,
Thanks for the suggestions. I would be interested in the PLT Scheme
implementation/software. Where is
the best place to get that? Can you suggest some reading material for
learning scheme as well. I have been
reading the Practical Common Lisp book that is available online. Will there
not be significant differences between
Scheme and CL Lisp?
Bruce
"Majorinc"; "Kazimir" <·······@false.email> wrote in message
·······························@news.t-com.hr...
> In article <·························@roadrunner.com>,
> ············@nc.rr.com says...
>> Hello all,
>> I was reading the book Practical Common Lisp, which is available
>> online. It recommends using Lisp-In-a-Box as an implementation. So, I
>> picked that up online. There was a problem with the tool, interpreter
>> and
>> Emacs environment. After installing what I thought was everything, it
>> says
>> that the tutorial files do not exist. Can anyone suggest a link to get
>> what
>> is needed to use this along with the Emacs tutorial. It might help to
>> know
>> this as it is used in other environments/programming languages as well,
>> such
>> as Prolog.
>> I'm open to other suggestions for running Lisp on a Windows Vista
>> (32bit) system.
>> thanks,
>> Bruce
>
>
> You do not want to learn Emacs because you might easily
> conclude you do not like Lisp at all, or that you like some
> other Lisp IDE. By far the simplest solution to start with
> Common Lisp is provided by this cute new product ABLE.
>
> http://phil.nullable.eu/
>
> If it was around when I started, I'd spare alot of time with
> that.
>
> Two commercial Lisp's have better IDE's but even these IDE's
> require some time to get used to. And then, these two products
> in free versions have severe memory limitations so you cannot
> use them for much more than demo and experiments that do not
> require significant memory use.
>
> The best overall free IDE based solution in Lisp world is
> probably PLT Scheme, but then it is not Common Lisp. However,
> if you still think in terms of "some Lisp" and not Common Lisp,
> consider this too.
Bruce Whealton <·····@futurewavedesigns.com> wrote:
+---------------
| I would be interested in the PLT Scheme implementation/software.
| Where is the best place to get that?
+---------------
http://plt-scheme.org/
+---------------
| Can you suggest some reading material for learning scheme as well.
+---------------
http://www.schemers.org/
+---------------
| I have been reading the Practical Common Lisp book that is
| available online. Will there not be significant differences
| between Scheme and CL Lisp?
+---------------
Uh... At least as much as between C & Java...
-Rob
p.s. Scheme is better discussed in "comp.lang.scheme".
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
In article <·························@roadrunner.com>,
·····@futurewavedesigns.com says...
> Hi,
> Thanks for the suggestions. I would be interested in the PLT Scheme
> implementation/software. Where is
> the best place to get that? Can you suggest some reading material for
> learning scheme as well. I have been
> reading the Practical Common Lisp book that is available online. Will there
> not be significant differences between
> Scheme and CL Lisp?
Here is one comparison:
http://community.schemewiki.org/?scheme-vs-common-lisp
These are differences "in general." Differences between
implementations might be bigger.