building LISP executable on win9x 
Author Message
 building LISP executable on win9x

All right I've been looking for a while, and trying it with various versions of ALLEGRO CL for
Windows, but I can't seem to find anything that can create me an executable from LISP code.  The
lite version had the option but it was disabled.  An even liter version (4M as opposed to the 40+
MB version) -- well, I can't even find a version of that that doesn't immediately say that it's
already expired and then quit.  I'm not sure what other options there are for compiling lisp in
windows...  Could anyone suggest a non-expensive way to crank me out a DOS/windows executable LISP
program?

Thanks,
Josh



Sun, 21 Apr 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 building LISP executable on win9x


Quote:
> All right I've been looking for a while, and trying it with various

versions of ALLEGRO CL for
Quote:
> Windows, but I can't seem to find anything that can create me an

executable from LISP code.  The
Quote:
> lite version had the option but it was disabled.  An even liter

version (4M as opposed to the 40+
Quote:
> MB version) -- well, I can't even find a version of that that doesn't

immediately say that it's
Quote:
> already expired and then quit.  I'm not sure what other options there

are for compiling lisp in
Quote:
> windows...  Could anyone suggest a non-expensive way to crank me out

a DOS/windows executable LISP

Quote:
> program?

> Thanks,
> Josh

Try Corman Lisp at http://www.corman.net. While not as mature as ACL it
is free, and has an easy means of making an executable. While free, the
IDE does cost money (not much) but a trial version is provided. Corman
Lisp comes with documentation in your choice of a word .doc document or
a .pdf file which are located in the doc directory of the installation
directory.

--
John Watton
Alcoa Inc.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.



Mon, 22 Apr 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 building LISP executable on win9x

Quote:

> Could anyone suggest a non-expensive way to crank me out a
> DOS/windows executable LISP program?

Depends on your definition of non-expensive. If you are defining
expensive as initial cost of ownership, you probably can't beat:
http://www.corman.net

The following Lisps also have this feature, but it is not available in
any trial version. (You may be able to evaluate a professional version
free of charge, however, that has this feature.)

http://www.franz.com
http://www.harlequin.com

Christopher



Mon, 22 Apr 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 building LISP executable on win9x
[Posted to comp.lang.lisp and comp.lang.pop.
To reply replace "Aaron.Sloman.XX" with "A.Sloman"]


Quote:
> Date: 3 Nov 1999 16:49:25 -0600
> Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla
> ...
> I'm not sure what other options there are for compiling lisp in
> windows...  Could anyone suggest a non-expensive way to crank me
> out a DOS/windows executable LISP
> program?

I am not sure if this will help: the poplog system runs under NT
and Win95/98 and includes a version of common lisp compatible
with CLTL2. It is available at the FreePoplog site

    ftp://ftp.cs.bham.ac.uk/pub/dist/poplog/freepoplog.html
    http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/freepoplog.html

and the full system sources for the Windows/NT poplog are browsable
in the directory
    http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/src/master/S.pcwnt/

and also available in a gzipped tar file
    ftp://ftp.cs.bham.ac.uk/pub/dist/poplog/new/pcwnt-sources.tar.gz
or
    http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/new/pcwnt-sources.tar.gz

(The other versions of poplog, for unix, already include sources:
but I don't know how to rebuild a Windows/NT package with additional
files! Also the unix versions support graphics, based on the X
window system, whereas the NT/win9x version has no graphics.
It was actually developed for NT, and a few system calls may not
work with win9x until some kind soul fixes them and contributes
the fixes to the free poplog site -- e.g. timing procedures.)

Re: building an executable.
In principle, by studying the documentation in

    http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/sysdoc/

along with the documentation included in Poplog (huge amounts) you
may be able to work out how to create your own executable.

Alternatively, you can far more easily build a saved image
containing the Common lisp extensions to poplog plus your own
code, and then deliver your program as the basic executable
(about 2MBytes or less: depending on how it is linked) plus the
saved image (about 1.6 to 2.6Mbytes for the lisp system,
depending what you want included) plus whatever your code
requires).

Starting up a poplog saved image involves giving a command of the
form
    basepop11 +myimage.psv

or if you use layered saved images
    basepop11 +myimage1 +myimage2 ...

and generally this is quite fast on a PC+linux system. I don't
know how windows compares.

E.g. on a 200Mhz PC with 32 Mbytes memory running Redhat 6.1,
using a remote file server, starting up such a command takes a
few seconds the first time (delay mostly due to fetching
the files via NFS?), and a fraction of a second after that,
presumably because of the local cache. Using a local disk I
expect it would always start up faster.

If you wanted to leave out part of the lisp system, e.g. CLOS or
formatted printing, etc. then you could compile a saved image
which includes only the required subset of common lisp
facilities: it would be smaller and would start up faster.
It's a bit harder to rebuild the basepop11 to leave out things
you don't want (e.g. basepop11 includes the Ved editor and
support for the prolog subsystem of the Poplog virtual machine).
You can't leave out the core pop11 system as that is needed to
compile the common lisp source.

Although this works and has been used for real lisp applications,
it won't run as fast as a dedicated lisp system, e.g. Allegro.
But it is totally free with full system sources available (thanks
to Sussex University and ISL, who used to sell it as a commercial
system).

I suspect that for some people it is useful having a distinction
between (1) the core system sources which are not easy to
understand or change, and which produce the basic executable,
with compiler, garbage collector, arithmetic operators, etc. etc.
and (2) the high level system sources (e.g. in Lisp or Pop-11)
which are much easier to understand and change and can be
incrementally compiled as needed. This relates to recent
discussions on comp.lang.lisp of the pros and cons of "open
source".

Please cross-post queries or comments about poplog common lisp to
comp.lang.pop

Thanks.

Aaron
==
--
Aaron Sloman, ( http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/ )
School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
EMAIL A.Sloman AT cs.bham.ac.uk   (NB: Anti Spam address)
PAPERS: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/cogaff/



Thu, 25 Apr 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 5 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. building an executable

2. Building Executable Programs

3. Built LabVIEW Executable without MAX

4. Error 1026 How To Build the G Web Server Using CGI Into an Executable

5. build executable problem

6. LabView 6.1 Building Executable with TAGS

7. Can Ruby build an executable file?

8. Why is an executable build that way???

9. Comments being built into executable

10. GWada - Will it build executables?

11. determine if executable built for debugging

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software