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 (debugger, stepper, inspector, class browser, integration with Emacs [including the possibility to look at a definition when one is in the debugger], 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?
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 theglau...@my-deja.com "Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"
* ebf...@bluewin.ch | 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.
>>>>> "Glauber" == The Glauber <theglau...@my-deja.com> writes:
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.
In article <4n8zvxflag....@rtp.ericsson.se>, Raymond Toy <t...@rtp.ericsson.se> wrote: [...]
> 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) :-)
> Glauber> can't complain about a free product!
> People complain about everything. :-)
Don't they? :-)
glauber
-- Glauber Ribeiro theglau...@my-deja.com "Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"
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?!?!?!).
John Watton <john.wat...@alcoa.com> wrote in message
> In article <39526DB6.3577D...@bluewin.ch>, > ebf...@bluewin.ch wrote: > > 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.
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.
ebf...@bluewin.ch wrote: > 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.
* ebf...@bluewin.ch | 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 bloody 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.
> 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.
> 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 };-)
ebf...@bluewin.ch wrote: > _ 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.
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:49:10 +0200, ebf...@bluewin.ch wrote: > _ 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
Jason Trenouth <ja...@harlequin.com> writes: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:49:10 +0200, ebf...@bluewin.ch wrote:
> > _ 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.
-- Pierre Mai <p...@acm.org> PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft- bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
> | 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.
> In article <39526DB6.3577D...@bluewin.ch>, > ebf...@bluewin.ch wrote: > > _ 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? :-?
In article <qsC45.767$_x2.13...@news.uswest.net>,[...]
> 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?!?!?!).
The character mode window works fine for me. It would be perfect if it had the line editing compiled in. I wish i had the time and resources to compile it myself.
glauber
-- Glauber Ribeiro theglau...@my-deja.com "Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"
* Fernando wrote: > Why this difference, is this a usual behaviour in CL > implementations? :-?
Yes -- or any language probably. If you run interpreted then the interpreter uses all sorts of stack for its own purposes, which you can usually see by asking for a backtrace of some kind. If you compile then you don't see this.
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:11:02 +0200, ebf...@bluewin.ch wrote: > 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
As far as I know, Franz makes it available for Linux a free Trial Edition of its latest Common Lisp system, currently Allegro CL 5.0.1. Besides, users of the Trial Edition are also allowed to keep up to date by downloading patches for the product.
> > Why this difference, is this a usual behaviour in CL > > implementations? :-?
> Yes -- or any language probably. If you run interpreted then the > interpreter uses all sorts of stack for its own purposes, which you > can usually see by asking for a backtrace of some kind. If you > compile then you don't see this.
I was surprised because with mzscheme that test was almost instataneous (I mean the correct result, not the stack overflow O:-) and, as far as I know, it's interpreted code... :-?
"Fernando" <f...@mindless.com> writes: > "Tim Bradshaw" <t...@cley.com> escribió en el mensaje > news:ey3wvjg4k0t.fsf@cley.com... > > * Fernando wrote:
> > > Why this difference, is this a usual behaviour in CL > > > implementations? :-?
> > Yes -- or any language probably. If you run interpreted then the > > interpreter uses all sorts of stack for its own purposes, which you > > can usually see by asking for a backtrace of some kind. If you > > compile then you don't see this.
> I was surprised because with mzscheme that test was almost instataneous (I > mean the correct result, not the stack overflow O:-) and, as far as I know, > it's interpreted code... :-?
The difference lies in the default stack size that different implementations have. If you only have an interpreter, like mzscheme, then you will of course optimize for the interpreted case, which among other things will probably lead to bigger default stack sizes, a more optimized interpreter, etc.
Given that all CL implementations worth their salt contain compilers, (and some don't contain any interpreter at all, i.e. they compile all code automatically) they won't optimize their setup for the useless case of running non-trivial stuff in interpreted mode.
Regs, Pierre.
-- Pierre Mai <p...@acm.org> PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft- bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
* Fernando wrote: > I was surprised because with mzscheme that test was almost > instataneous (I mean the correct result, not the stack overflow O:-) > and, as far as I know, it's interpreted code... :-?
Well, this depends on how deep the stack is, how much effort has gone into the intepreter (systems with no compiler may put lot of effort into making the intepreter fast, and may also keep the stack of the interpreted language somewhere separate from the interpreter stack). Also some systems may basically have no intepreter, but compile everything on the fly, I'm not familiar with mzscheme so I can't say what it does.
In general though, it's not safe to assume that the compiler & intepreter will have the same limits of things like stack & so on.
> 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.
Well, I can consider paying $200 for a licence of Corman Lisp, but spending more than $1000 for a licence of a package from Franz Inc. or Harelquin's successor is currently out of question.
> 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.
Some of the limitations of the Corman Lisp look well documented, especially for CLOS, and they look managable. Altough it is possible to call all Win32 functions, there is no GUI generator per se. At least, it is possible to build one.
> 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.
Well, the Corman Lisp looks as the best option for me too and it definitely looks as a nice product worth being used and maybe even completed.
> 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.
Thanks for the suggestion. I must admit that delaying this payment did not make me feel comfortable.
> 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.
Didn't you know that Dilbert was incredibly optimistic? Administrations and many large compagnies may inspire quite a few writers.
> 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."
I skimmed through it, noticed it but it didn't "flash" immediately in my head. Maybe I was too much looking for a GUI generator. But you are right in the sense that the integration with the Win32 API opens the possibility to build or port one. By the way, the documentation is concise but well organized and quite complete. The more I examine it, the more interesting this product looks to me.
