I am new to Lisp and was wondering how compatible Lisp is with Windows
OS. Does it depend on the type of application I would be building? Any
thoughts?
Daniel
On May 16, 11:01 am, ralis <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am new to Lisp and was wondering how compatible Lisp is with Windows
> OS. Does it depend on the type of application I would be building? Any
> thoughts?
>
> Daniel
Franz has a free Edition for windows
http://www.franz.com/downloads/allegrodownload.lhtml
George
franz has a free windows edition. Download and try
http://www.franz.com/downloads/allegrodownload.lhtml
George
ralis wrote:
> I am new to Lisp and was wondering how compatible Lisp is with Windows
> OS. Does it depend on the type of application I would be building? Any
> thoughts?
>
> Daniel
Commercial lisps
http://www.franz.com
http://www.lispworks.com
http://www.cormanlisp.com
have good support for windows GUI building, odbc, com, activex and
dlls.
Opensource implementations are barely usable on windows with clisp
being the best.
> Opensource implementations are barely usable on windows with clisp
> being the best.
Good -however- for developing web applications.
You surely have already considered the possibility of developing your
app as a web one.
On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:15:40 -0700 (PDT), Vagif Verdi <···········@gmail.com>
tried to confuse everyone with this message:
>
>Opensource implementations are barely usable on windows with clisp
>being the best.
Not true, CLISP works perfectly fine on Windows. SBCL also works much better
than "barely usable". Not to mention ECL, which I haven't tried.
--
|Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr---------.ru
|It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il |
|But we can take them on! | @ma |
| (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip) |______________|
On May 16, 5:31 am, ····@mail.ru (Timofei Shatrov) wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:15:40 -0700 (PDT), Vagif Verdi <···········@gmail.com>
> tried to confuse everyone with this message:
>
>
>
> >Opensource implementations are barely usable on windows with clisp
> >being the best.
>
> Not true, CLISP works perfectly fine on Windows. SBCL also works much better
> than "barely usable". Not to mention ECL, which I haven't tried.
>
Any programming environment claiming it works perfectly on windows,
must support com and activex. Is there a way to use com libraries from
clisp ? I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong.
Vagif Verdi wrote:
> On May 16, 5:31 am, ····@mail.ru (Timofei Shatrov) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:15:40 -0700 (PDT), Vagif Verdi <···········@gmail.com>
>>tried to confuse everyone with this message:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Opensource implementations are barely usable on windows with clisp
>>>being the best.
>>
>>Not true, CLISP works perfectly fine on Windows. SBCL also works much better
>>than "barely usable". Not to mention ECL, which I haven't tried.
>>
>
>
> Any programming environment claiming it works perfectly on windows,
> must support com and activex.
That would be "works perfectly /with/ Windows". Sometimes we just need
to be "on Windows" to satisfy some non-techincal requirement, not
because we want to lock ourselves into all their, well, crap. In which
case you just need a Lisp, an FFI, and portable libraries (which will
/not/ involve all that other BS.
> Is there a way to use com libraries from
> clisp ?
I don't know. How gratuitously badly crippled are they to spread the
monopoly? Do you have to use a .net language or any specific language to
get at them? Please don't say VC++... <g>
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
On May 16, 12:24 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
> That would be "works perfectly /with/ Windows".
Isn't that what original author of this thread asked for ?
>Sometimes we just need to be "on Windows" to satisfy some non-techincal requirement
Now that's your interpretation.
>Do you have to use a .net language or any specific language to get at them?
No, you do not have to use .net or any specific language. But FFI has
to have a way to hook to com libraries and instantiate them.
The main reason i'm using python instead of clisp on windows is
because python can work with com libraries out of the box.
Vagif Verdi wrote:
> On May 16, 12:24 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>That would be "works perfectly /with/ Windows".
>
>
> Isn't that what original author of this thread asked for ?
Right you are!
But then even with their choice of words we have to ask them, ie, the OP
should have been asked "do you mean .net? com? activex? If yes, X, else
X or Y.
>>Sometimes we just need to be "on Windows" to satisfy some non-techincal requirement
>
>
> Now that's your interpretation.
No, that's a fact if we are talking about running /on/ Windows vs
interfacing to all of Windows garbage. I was not interpretating anything
about the OP, I was reacting to your defining "Windows perfection" as
"garbage-compatible". Please observe that I have been dicing and slicing
on Windows for ten years and do not even know what COM is. My app is a
retail app that should run on the Mac or Windows, no .net for me, thanks.
>>Do you have to use a .net language or any specific language to get at them?
>
>
> No, you do not have to use .net or any specific language. But FFI has
> to have a way to hook to com libraries and instantiate them.
> The main reason i'm using python instead of clisp on windows is
> because python can work with com libraries out of the box.
You don't like the smell of glue? I love the smell of glue. :)
You translated the OPs question into your experience. I would have
understood you better if you had asked the OP to clarify if they needed
the garbage instead of grandly asserting something does not run
perfectly on windows because it misses an obscure and shrinking
application niche. As much as I love applications. :)
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
On May 16, 2:14 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
> You translated the OPs question into your experience. I would have
> understood you better if you had asked the OP to clarify if they needed
> the garbage instead of grandly asserting something does not run
> perfectly on windows because it misses an obscure and shrinking
> application niche. As much as I love applications. :)
>
> kenny
>
I completely support the notion of ole, com and activex as a garbade.
Nonetheless i will not pretend that it is not important for windows
developers. Unfortunately it still is. And for me too.
I guess only OP can clarify what he meant by "how compatible Lisp is
with Windows
OS."
For me as a developer compatibility with windows means compatibility
with its major APIs.
Vagif Verdi wrote:
> On May 16, 2:14 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>You translated the OPs question into your experience. I would have
>>understood you better if you had asked the OP to clarify if they needed
>>the garbage instead of grandly asserting something does not run
>>perfectly on windows because it misses an obscure and shrinking
>>application niche. As much as I love applications. :)
>>
>>kenny
>>
>
>
> I completely support the notion of ole, com and activex as a garbade.
> Nonetheless i will not pretend that it is not important for windows
> developers. Unfortunately it still is. And for me too.
>
> I guess only OP can clarify what he meant by "how compatible Lisp is
> with Windows
> OS."
>
> For me as a developer compatibility with windows means compatibility
> with its major APIs.
>
I think we agree: after ten years developing /on/ Windows I would never
answer an ad for a Windows developer. Hell, I may not even be a Lisp
developer, even ITA won't hire me. Must be a den of yobbos -- well, hang
on, they haven't the sense to use Lispworks, you /know/ it's a den of
yobbos.
I am looking at SAT tutoring, then bartending school, feeling more
cheerful every day! Of course that might just be the longer days, but
with the rain we're having on the west coast... where was I?
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
On Fri, 16 May 2008 13:01:05 -0700 (PDT), Vagif Verdi <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 12:24 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>> That would be "works perfectly /with/ Windows".
>
> Isn't that what original author of this thread asked for ?
No.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:24:34 -0400, Ken Tilton
<···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>Vagif Verdi wrote:
>> On May 16, 5:31 am, ····@mail.ru (Timofei Shatrov) wrote:
>>
>> Is there a way to use com libraries from
>> clisp ?
>
>I don't know. How gratuitously badly crippled are they to spread the
>monopoly? Do you have to use a .net language or any specific language to
>get at them? Please don't say VC++... <g>
Don't know about any free Lisp. Allegro and Corman have COM libraries
(Corman itself *is* a COM object). Probably Lispworks does as well.
COM has a C compatible function call interface so it could be made to
work with (C)FFI. The downside is that COM is (theoretically)
platform neutral ... many older COM objects were implemented in VB and
many newer ones are in C# or VB.NET - none of which are exactly data
compatible with either C or Lisp (though C# is close).
The marshalling/unmarshalling may be a performance issue.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:40:44 -0400, George Neuner <·········@/comcast.net> wrote:
> Don't know about any free Lisp. Allegro and Corman have COM
> libraries (Corman itself *is* a COM object). Probably Lispworks
> does as well.
That's easy to look up:
http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw51/COM/html/com.htm
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:36:07 +0200, Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de>
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:40:44 -0400, George Neuner <·········@/comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Don't know about any free Lisp. Allegro and Corman have COM
>> libraries (Corman itself *is* a COM object). Probably Lispworks
>> does as well.
>
>That's easy to look up:
>
> http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw51/COM/html/com.htm
>
>Edi.
I could have looked, but I didn't want to.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
VV> Any programming environment claiming it works perfectly on windows,
VV> must support com and activex.
you're mixing "works on windows" with "supports all windows bullshit".
even with all crutches microsoft have implemented, working with COM ain't
all sugar even via Microsoft Visual C/C++, especially in C,
and especially IDispatch stuff -- actually no surprise, IDispatch was
designed for languages like VB and JScript but not C++.
so probably only VB was working perfectly on windows until .net :)
VV> Is there a way to use com libraries from clisp ? I'd be thrilled to be
VV> proven wrong.
they say CLISP fully supports CFFI, and CFFI has forering-funcall that can
be passed a function pointer as a parameter -- and that's enough to work
with COM objects.
googling for stuff like this i've found some cl-win32ole sources, so here's
how AddRef of COM objects looks like:
(defun unknown-add-ref (unknown)
(cffi:foreign-funcall-pointer
(%unknown-function unknown 'AddRef) ()
:pointer unknown
:unsigned-long))
are you thrilled? :)
Vagif Verdi <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> On May 16, 5:31 am, ····@mail.ru (Timofei Shatrov) wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:15:40 -0700 (PDT), Vagif Verdi <···········@gmail.com>
>> tried to confuse everyone with this message:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Opensource implementations are barely usable on windows with clisp
>> >being the best.
>>
>> Not true, CLISP works perfectly fine on Windows. SBCL also works much better
>> than "barely usable". Not to mention ECL, which I haven't tried.
>>
>
> Any programming environment claiming it works perfectly on windows,
> must support com and activex. Is there a way to use com libraries from
> clisp ?
Yes, there is.
In the worse case, with clisp you can always write a clisp module, in
C, linked with anything, and providing a lisp API for it. For
example, the LINUX package in clisp is implemented as a module.
Otherwise, all you can do in C, you can do in lisp thanks to FFIs. In
the end, you should be able to do it in lisp even more conveniently,
thanks to macros.
> I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
??>> Opensource implementations are barely usable on windows with clisp
??>> being the best.
TS> Not true, CLISP works perfectly fine on Windows.
agreed.
TS> SBCL also works much better than "barely usable".
it depends on definition of "barely usable". for most people "use" is not
just launching it can trying stuff like (+ 2 2), but development of
commercial applications or some serious uses where people actually _depend_
on their programming language implementation.
would you bet on SBCL for commercial application development (on Windows)?
as for me, i would not. project status page says "Port in progress", so
even SBCL developers do not think that port is good enough for now.
i think it's good only for trying it out and getting amazed that some stuff
works fine on it.
but even for learning it might be a bad choice, because if something goes
wrong,
you won't be sure if you did something wrong, or implementation got broken.
TS> Not to mention ECL, which I haven't tried.
ECL is one of simpliest Common Lisp implementations, so even if something
will go wrong with it on Windows, it might be not that hard to fix it.
On May 16, 9:43 am, "Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> TS> SBCLalso works much better than "barely usable".
>
> it depends on definition of "barely usable". for most people "use" is not
> just launching it can trying stuff like (+ 2 2), but development of
> commercial applications or some serious uses where people actually _depend_
> on their programming language implementation.
For those interested in trying out SBCL on Windows, I wrote an install
guide:
http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/installing-sbcl-emacs-and-slime-on-windows-xp/
-Peter
On Thu, 15 May 2008 17:01:51 -0700 (PDT), ralis <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am new to Lisp and was wondering how compatible Lisp is with
> Windows OS. Does it depend on the type of application I would be
> building? Any thoughts?
Compatible? Not sure what you mean. If you're wondering whether it's
possible to write "normal" Windows applications with Lisp - yes it is.
Here are some examples:
http://www.inspiration.com/productinfo/inspiredata/index.cfm
http://www.piano.aero/
http://www.noteheads.com/igor/igor.html
http://www.netfonds.no/manual_pt_eng.php
http://weitz.de/regex-coach/
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 17:01:51 -0700 (PDT), ralis <············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I am new to Lisp and was wondering how compatible Lisp is with
>>Windows OS. Does it depend on the type of application I would be
>>building? Any thoughts?
>
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/2008/02/ooh-ooh-my-turn-why-lisp.html
>
> Compatible? Not sure what you mean. If you're wondering whether it's
> possible to write "normal" Windows applications with Lisp - yes it is.
> Here are some examples:
>
> http://www.inspiration.com/productinfo/inspiredata/index.cfm
> http://www.piano.aero/
> http://www.noteheads.com/igor/igor.html
> http://www.netfonds.no/manual_pt_eng.php
> http://weitz.de/regex-coach/
>
So what am I? Abnormal?
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/demo-27.html
OS independent and OpenGL accelerated to boot, with an entire scripting
language (Tcl/Tk) underneath.
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:29:38 -0400, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
> So what am I? Abnormal?
You write applications? Oh, sorry, must have missed that... :)
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:29:38 -0400, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>So what am I? Abnormal?
>
>
> You write applications? Oh, sorry, must have missed that... :)
Please don't assume I only support Cells, Celtk, Cello, Cells-Gtk,
TripleCells, OpenAIR and got CFFI and Verrazano created and have
mentored four Lisp Google Summer of Code projects and helped start a
chain of Lisp social groups now rivaling Starbucks in its ubiquity and
talk at Lisp gatherings and tried to reawaken AI interest in Lisp with
RoboCells and write (hto not lately) a Lisp advocacy blog and keep the
troops entertained on c.l.lisp because that is all I have time for.
:)
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
ralis wrote:
> I am new to Lisp and was wondering how compatible Lisp is with Windows
> OS. Does it depend on the type of application I would be building? Any
> thoughts?
>
> Daniel
Many Common Lisp implementations run on Windows. See
http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
One that has particularly interesting Windows support is
Corman CL. It fits into the Microsoft ecosystem in many
useful ways, if that's what you want to do.