Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT? 
Author Message
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?

Hi,

The subject says the essential. I am looking for an affordable (free
would be even better) implementation of ANSI (or CLTL II) Common Lisp
for Win95, with a developpment environnment that can use tools
developped
on workstations, like Maxima, and a GUI.

I looked that the site of the ALU, and I tested several implementations
proposed there:

_ I tried the personal edition of Harlequin LispWorks, but I found its
  limitations too strong. For example it did not pass Guy Steele's
  test (/ (factorial 1000) (factorial 999)) with a factorial
intentionally
  defined recursively. It produced a stack overflow.

_ Franz Inc does also have a "trial" edition for Windows, but with a
heap
  that cannot be larger than 16Mb, I did not find useful to evaluate it.

_ I downloaded CLISP. It looks less restricted, but it is requires a DOS
  window which is bound to disappear in the next version of Windows and
  the Win32 version looks quite bare. Integration (in Windows) between
  CLISP and Emacs (20.7.1) is problematic (with the most primitive
method
  [calling Clisp from a shell], it cannot find the path to the
lispinit.mem.
  The documentation that comes with it is small, but I did not find very
  much about a developpment environnment (de{*filter*}, stepper, inspector,
  class browser, integration with Emacs [including the possibility to
look
  at a definition when one is in the de{*filter*}], GUI and external
packages).

  Actually, I did find a few packages, i.e. a debugging environnment and
an
  old version of Maxima, but both are bound to TCL/TK which is mainly
based
  on X11 (ports to Win32 exist now, but I don't know how good they are).

_ I found an implementation called "Corman Lisp". It is native, it looks
fast
  and efficient, but I don't know how complete its implementation is and
its
  developpment environnement is not free (it costs $200), it does not
include
  a GUI generator and I am not sure that it will be possible to use (or
even
  port) tools developped in the Unix World.

Well, what I found did not leave me very enthusiastic. Maybe with the
exception of the commercial products of Harlequin and Franz Inc, there
doesn't
seem to be very much good common Lisp environnment under Windows. And I
am
not even sure that the commercial products are really able to use all
the
packages available (either commercially or under the GNU copyleft).
Although
I can understand that Windows is not the preferred platform for many
people
(mine remains the Symbolics I used many years ago), I am not sure that
ignoring
the platform used by a large majority of people makes sense.

Well, what is your perception of Clisp and of Corman Lisp under Windows?
Is there a way to turn them into a good environnment without too much
effort?
If I get the Win32's version of TCL/Tk, is it relatively easy to install
Maxima and CLISP's debugging environnement, or do they need a (partial)
re-implementation? How good is the resulting environnment?

Thank you very much in advance for your help.

Marie-No?lle Baechler



Mon, 09 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?
I don't know enough to comment on these things, but so far i like CLISP
a lot (but then, i don't mind minimalistic environments). I only wish
they had included a "readkey" or command history buffer in the
precompiled binary. But then, can't really complain about a free
product!

glauber
--
Glauber Ribeiro

"Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"

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



Mon, 09 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?

| Well, what I found did not leave me very enthusiastic.

  Neither was your incredibly negative message.  Why, precisely, do
  you need help when you have made up so much of your mind?  Pardon my
  prejudice against such articles (and surely you don't have anything
  against prejudice who don't even bother to test a product based on
  prejudice), but we're going to have another round of "oh, I like
  Lisp, but I cannot use it in my environment", which I just _hate_.

| Although I can understand that Windows is not the preferred platform
| for many people (mine remains the Symbolics I used many years ago),
| I am not sure that ignoring the platform used by a large majority of
| people makes sense.

  You're wrong, of course, but why bother improving on your negativity?

#:Erik
--
  If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.



Mon, 09 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?

    Glauber> a lot (but then, i don't mind minimalistic environments). I only wish
    Glauber> they had included a "readkey" or command history buffer in the
    Glauber> precompiled binary. But then, can't really complain about a free

I don't know about Win32, but Clisp on Unix can be compiled with
readline which gives you a command history and command-line editing.
I like this very much.

    Glauber> product!

People complain about everything. :-)

Ray



Mon, 09 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?


[...]

Quote:

> I don't know about Win32, but Clisp on Unix can be compiled with
> readline which gives you a command history and command-line editing.
> I like this very much.

It's included in the AIX binary, but not in the win32 binary (this is
slightly painful). But then, the win32 binary is version 2000-03-06,
not the most recent (2000-03-09) :-)

Quote:

>     Glauber> can't complain about a free product!

> People complain about everything. :-)

Don't they? :-)

glauber

--
Glauber Ribeiro

"Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"

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



Mon, 09 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?
I would warn the original poster that there are some limitations in the
Corman Lisp system (not a full CLOS implementation, a few functions here and
there are missing, etc.) and there is not any built-in GUI system per se.
It's advantages are that it is well integrated with the Windows environment,
it has built-in support for DLL's, and the system is callable as a COM
component.  I've been using it for about a year or so and I've enjoyed it
more than the commercial systems (maybe because it's open source and I can
actually see what's going on under the covers).  It's well worth the fee you
pay to Roger.  If I were going solely on a criteria of functionality vs.
price for a Windows capable Common Lisp, I'd say it's the best system out
there.

faa

P.S.  One might say that the (free) CLISP has a better functionality/price,
but since I like Corman Lisp's minimalist IDE better than CLISP's DOS
window, I give the latter negative functionality points (Not to knock
Bruno's Common Lisp implementation - which is very nice - but a DOS
window?!?!?!).


Quote:


> >  I found an implementation called "Corman Lisp". It is native, it
> looks
> > fast
> >   and efficient, but I don't know how complete its implementation is
> and
> > its
> >   developpment environnement is not free (it costs $200), it does not
> > include
> >   a GUI generator and I am not sure that it will be possible to use
> (or
> > even
> >   port) tools developped in the Unix World.

> I wouldn't worry about the $200. It appears optional since I have run
> version 1.4 since the day it has come out and the development
> environment has always been there. Talk about grace period! To the
> question about registering just choose not yet. I have been meaning to
> send Mr. Corman the money - just haven't gotten around to it. BTW any
> company that is going to make you spend time justifying a $200 purchase
> is about to go under - get your resume out there. As for GUI generator
> - did you read the first paragraph of the Corman Lisp User Guide and
> Reference? I guess not. To quote: .. is fully integrated with the Win32
> API, with all the Windows functions readily available from Lisp." In
> case you can't find the manual look in the /documentation subdirectory
> of the installation directory.

> --
> John Watton
> Alcoa Inc.

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



Mon, 09 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?

Well, it is your right to be disappointed by my message, as I was
disappointed by what I found. And I also feel that I have the right
to express my disappointment as you have the right to express yours.

I posted my message because I was far from sure that I did see
everything,
especially about CLISP and Corman Lisp running on windows (getting the
funding for commercial licenses of Allegro CL or Harlequin CL is out of
question). I am willing to spend some time and even some money on a
software,
but only if it has a real potential, if it runs on Windows and if it can
be
extended without system programming. Several years ago, I spent 500 UK
pounds
on an Common Lisp environnement that proved uselss and I want to avoid
that experience.

As a side note, if Franz Inc did also offer a full but older version
of Common Lisp on Windows, as it does on Linux, I would have been
very interested.

Once again, it is your right to have other expectations than mine.

MNB



Tue, 10 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?

Quote:

>  I found an implementation called "Corman Lisp". It is native, it
looks
> fast
>   and efficient, but I don't know how complete its implementation is
and
> its
>   developpment environnement is not free (it costs $200), it does not
> include
>   a GUI generator and I am not sure that it will be possible to use
(or
> even
>   port) tools developped in the Unix World.

I wouldn't worry about the $200. It appears optional since I have run
version 1.4 since the day it has come out and the development
environment has always been there. Talk about grace period! To the
question about registering just choose not yet. I have been meaning to
send Mr. Corman the money - just haven't gotten around to it. BTW any
company that is going to make you spend time justifying a $200 purchase
is about to go under - get your resume out there. As for GUI generator
- did you read the first paragraph of the Corman Lisp User Guide and
Reference? I guess not. To quote: .. is fully integrated with the Win32
API, with all the Windows functions readily available from Lisp." In
case you can't find the manual look in the /documentation subdirectory
of the installation directory.

--
John Watton
Alcoa Inc.

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



Tue, 10 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?

| Well, it is your right to be disappointed by my message, as I was
| disappointed by what I found. And I also feel that I have the right
| to express my disappointment as you have the right to express yours.

  When you invoke rights where they clearly have no place, you tell me
  that you have no intention of listening to anyone but yourself, and
  thus strongly reinforce my negative impression of your business here.

| As a side note, if Franz Inc did also offer a full but older version
| of Common Lisp on Windows, as it does on Linux, I would have been
| very interested.

  They do that on Linux?  I'm not as much bothered by the fact that
  you post misleading, negative stuff as that you seem completely
  oblivious to the fact that you assume without due cause that you are
  entirely correct in everything you say even when there is evidence
  to the contrary either presented to you, bordering on the {*filter*}y
  obvious, or very easily available.

  Franz Inc likes to work _with_ their customers.  This means you have
  to engage in the unusual task of talking to a vendor, not just order
  some stuff over the Net on a take it or leave it basis.  It also
  means _you_ need a serious attitude readjustment before you approach
  them.  You sound like the world owes you a break -- and I know of no
  vendor of anything who will respond nicely to such an attitude,
  especially not when you ask for free stuff.

  If you were so "very interested" as you'd like me to believe, you
  wouldn't be put off by silliness and prejudice.  If you were honest
  in your desire to use Lisp on the Windows platform, disappointment
  is the last I would expect.  So I assume your disappointment is real
  and your stated desire is not.

| Once again, it is your right to have other expectations than mine.

  I think perhaps you should read my .signature.

  Quit this talk about "rights", please.  You insult the concept.

#:Erik
--
  If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.



Tue, 10 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?



Quote:

> Hi,

> The subject says the essential. I am looking for an affordable (free
> would be even better) implementation of ANSI (or CLTL II) Common Lisp
> for Win95, with a developpment environnment that can use tools
> developped
> on workstations, like Maxima, and a GUI.

    You're probably out of luck.  The only free CL for win32 is CLisp.  If
buying a commercial version is out of question, and if you have the time and
knowledge, you could consider porting cmucl to win32... O:-)  I don't know
if there's anyone working on such a port, but it would be interesting.

Quote:
> I can understand that Windows is not the preferred platform for many
> people

It is the preferred platform for MANY people, that's the problem };-)


Tue, 10 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?

Quote:

> _ I tried the personal edition of Harlequin LispWorks, but I found its
>   limitations too strong. For example it did not pass Guy Steele's
>   test (/ (factorial 1000) (factorial 999)) with a factorial
> intentionally
>   defined recursively. It produced a stack overflow.

It does is you compile the function, otherwise it runs an interpreted
version.

CL-USER 1 > (defun factorial (n)
              (if (zerop n)
                  1
                (* n (factorial (1- n)))))
FACTORIAL

CL-USER 2 > (compile 'factorial)
; Loading fasl file D:\Program Files\Harlequin\LispWorks
Personal\lib\4-1-0-0\modules\concat\xref.fsl
FACTORIAL
NIL
NIL

CL-USER 3 > (/ (factorial 1000) (factorial 999))
1000

CL-USER 4 >

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



Tue, 10 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?

Quote:

> _ I tried the personal edition of Harlequin LispWorks, but I found its
>   limitations too strong. For example it did not pass Guy Steele's
>   test (/ (factorial 1000) (factorial 999)) with a factorial
> intentionally
>   defined recursively. It produced a stack overflow.

What did you do? Admittedly this is not the Personal Edition, which I don't
have to hand.

CL-USER 17 > (defun factorial (x) (if (eq x 0) 1 (* x (factorial (1- x)))))
FACTORIAL

CL-USER 18 > (/ (factorial 1000) (factorial 999))

Stack overflow (stack size 16000).
  1 (abort) Return to level 0.
  2 Return to top loop level 0.

Type :b for backtrace, :c <option number> to proceed,  or :? for other options

CL-USER 19 : 1 > :a

CL-USER 20 > (compile (defun factorial (x) (if (eq x 0) 1 (* x (factorial (1-
x))))))
; Loading fasl file E:\Program
Files\Harlequin\LispWorks\lib\4-1-0-0\modules\concat\xref.fsl
FACTORIAL
NIL
NIL

CL-USER 21 > (/ (factorial 1000) (factorial 999))
1000

__Jason



Tue, 10 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?

Quote:


> > _ I tried the personal edition of Harlequin LispWorks, but I found its
> >   limitations too strong. For example it did not pass Guy Steele's
> >   test (/ (factorial 1000) (factorial 999)) with a factorial
> > intentionally
> >   defined recursively. It produced a stack overflow.

> What did you do? Admittedly this is not the Personal Edition, which I don't
> have to hand.

The Personal Edition on Linux works identically in this regard.

Regs, Pierre.

--

  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]



Tue, 10 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?



Quote:
> | Although I can understand that Windows is not the preferred platform
> | for many people (mine remains the Symbolics I used many years ago),
> | I am not sure that ignoring the platform used by a large majority of
> | people makes sense.

>   You're wrong, of course, but why bother improving on your negativity?

It depends on the kind of work you do.  Developing for non mainstream
platforms doesn't always make sense from a commercial point of view.


Tue, 10 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?



Quote:


> > _ I tried the personal edition of Harlequin LispWorks, but I found its
> >   limitations too strong. For example it did not pass Guy Steele's
> >   test (/ (factorial 1000) (factorial 999)) with a factorial
> > intentionally
> >   defined recursively. It produced a stack overflow.

> It does is you compile the function, otherwise it runs an interpreted
> version.

Why this difference, is this a usual behaviour in CL implementations? :-?


Tue, 10 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 64 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

 Relevant Pages 

1. new Common Lisp for Windows 95/98/NT on the web

2. Common Lisp Implementation for Windows NT 4.0

3. NT / win95/98 Date/time problem HELP!!

4. Adding icon to SystemTray in win95/98/nt

5. UltimADE4 : Rapid Application Development for Win95/98/NT

6. Q: PL1-Compiler for WIN95, 98 or NT 4.0

7. different in win95/98 and NT

8. Enhancement: resolution multiplier for TclpGetTime on Win95/98/NT/2K

9. DDE fails on Win95/98 but NOT on NT

10. What I want from my Common Lisp vendor and the Common Lisp community

11. lucid common lisp -- C -- Common lisp intercallability

12. Lucid (Sun) Common Lisp vs Allegro (Franz) Common Lisp - the Summary

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software