In article <10q0milmhrlj...@corp.supernews.com>,
Chris Capel <ch....@iba.nktech.net> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig wrote:All Lisp systems are different.
> >> sketer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > Other implementations might have more overhead (I
> >> ~ $ ls /usr/local/lib/sbcl/sbcl.core -l
> >> I don't know about you, but 23 MB for the default core seems a bit big to
> > Is the file size the problem for you? Or the size of used
> > Is that 23MB SBCL core shareable if you start more than one SBCL?
> Well, aside from the overcommitment of memory, which causes my process
> Now, this isn't a problem for a server or a development machine or a
a) Lisps that have extensive development environments, large libraries,
Allegro CL, LispWorks.
b) Lisps that don't have that good performance, but small footprint.
OpenMCL, MCL, CLisp, Corman CL, ...
c) special purpose Lisps for embedding and/or delivery.
CLICC (dead), WCL (dead), ECL (actively maintained), ThinLisp
d) native compiling Lisps with often excellent performance
ACL, LispWorks, CMUCL, SBCL, ...
e) Lisps for the Windows platform with special support
Corman Lisp, Golden Common Lisp, Allegro CL for Windows, LispWorks for Windows
f) Lisps for the Mac OS X platform with special support
MCL, OpenMCL, LispWorks for Macintosh
g) cross-platform Lisps
CLisp, GCL, CMUCL, SBCL, ACL, LispWorks, ...
h) Lisps for multiprocessor machines
Scieneer Common Lisp, OpenMCL, Corman CL (?), ...
i) 64bit Lisps
Scieneer Common Lisp, Allegro CL, ...
j) Lisps on top of a Lisp operating system
Xerox Common Lisp, Symbolics Common Lisp, TI CL, ...
and so on.
Coming back to your question, yes, there are other Lisps that
> I have little experience with other implementations, and now thatYes, CLISP is small. So is OpenMCL on the Mac. IIRC you can compile
> I look, CLISP indeed only takes up a few megabytes in memory, most of that
> shared. That's less that twice as much as bash.
code with GCL to be relatively small.
CLisp runs Lisp either interpreted or compiled to byte-code.
> Can anyone speak as to whether there are difficulties with performance when
For some applications that can be advantage. Usually other
Lisps will generate much faster running code. CLISP
has fast bignums.
Depends. Often libraries can be ported to CLISP.
> > How about ECL? CLISP? GCL? On the Mac, OpenMCL is also
> > There were several Lisps that tried to be smaller and/or
> But the problem with CLISP, and far worse with GCL and ECL, is the poor
Plus in everyday programming not-so-perfect ANSI-CL-compliance
Something not to underestimate is that applications are
> I looked into GCL today, and found itThe GCL is currently quite active. So it might be possible
> couldn't be used in SLIME! (Though I understand the maintainers aren't
> happy about this, but not exactly rolling in free-time or
> listener-supported motivation :-).)
that there will be something like that some time. In the meantime
just use ILISP...
> Now, as a target for deployment, thatSure. GCL is based on earlier Lisps that spawned a whole family
> may not be such a big issue, and seeing as how GCL was based on gcc, I
> thought "Hey, maybe it supports some cool embeddable things like compiling
> to linkable libraries or taking out the compiler". It may be that that
> would be a solution for a past problem, when machines were smaller, but
> then GCL's been around for a while, hasn't it?
of implementations (KCL, AKCL, GCL, ... wasn't ECL earlier also
in the KCL-family?).
There is not a general CL culture (see above).
> Now that you've pointed it out, ECL and WCL seem to be up the alley I was
>While you'll find ClikiWCL is mostly dead I think.
> entries for them, they aren't mentioned much in other Cliki pages. You
> won't find them on many libraries' "supported" list (unless I've been
> selectively blind). They aren't mentioned in blogs, they aren't mentioned
> in usenet, they aren't mentioned much in #lisp. What's the reason for this?
> Do they have the some sort of incompleteness/weirdness/ obseleteness? Or
> maybe their users are just too happy to ever complain. :-) Maybe they have
> a separate culture...
ECL is active, but not that widely used I would think.
> Is there a link for WCL that's more informative than http://wcl.kontiki.com/Right. LispWorks has been used for the Regex Coach by Edi Weitz.
> ? That page is rather sparse.
> > Many people had that problem over the time. Some
> My head hurts thinking about all these issues. That and I've been trying to
> I keep hearing about Lispwork's nice deployment and GUI and stuff. The Regex
This should give you an impression what a small application
of LispWorks would look like.
Xanalys has another application written in LispWorks: Link Explorer -
which was 'Watson' in early times.
You can also do interesting applications for Windows with Allegro CL.
> So, the sort of modularity I referred to in my OP is desirable, right?
> Perhaps not a top priority, and perhaps increasingly irrelevant, and
> perhaps not something that will actually make it into any implementation,
> but ...
> Thanks for you time.
> Chris Capel
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.