Any progress on free open source Windows LISP Versions?

24 views
Skip to first unread message

scholz...@gmail.com

unread,
May 2, 2008, 2:43:20 AM5/2/08
to
How is the windows progress on the SBCL and CMUCL versions for Lisp?
Has anything be done in the last two years?

Webpages hasn't changed since then and both say experimental or still
no public code.

Edi Weitz

unread,
May 2, 2008, 5:45:10 AM5/2/08
to
On Thu, 1 May 2008 23:43:20 -0700 (PDT), scholz...@gmail.com wrote:

> How is the windows progress on the SBCL and CMUCL versions for Lisp?

Nothing about CMUCL/SBCL, but you might also want to look here:

http://clozure.com/pipermail/openmcl-devel/2008-May/008169.html

This is currently "only" about the x86 architecture, but I understand
the long-term plan is to also support Windows.

Edi.

--

Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.

Real email: (replace (subseq "spam...@agharta.de" 5) "edi")

scholz...@gmail.com

unread,
May 2, 2008, 8:25:04 AM5/2/08
to
>
> http://clozure.com/pipermail/openmcl-devel/2008-May/008169.html
>
> This is currently "only" about the x86 architecture, but I understand
> the long-term plan is to also support Windows.

Well at the moment i'm pissed of from the long-term plan of CMUCL/
SBCL
which is telling me a port is on the way since 2001 when i first
looked
at alternative non mainstream languages.

Lars Rune Nøstdal

unread,
May 2, 2008, 9:17:42 AM5/2/08
to

what about bringing the dependency on Linux to Win32 via
coLinux

http://www.colinux.org/

..i haven't tried this.. (no need)

--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://nostdal.org/

Edi Weitz

unread,
May 2, 2008, 10:08:19 AM5/2/08
to
On Fri, 2 May 2008 05:25:04 -0700 (PDT), scholz...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well at the moment i'm pissed of from the long-term plan of CMUCL/
> SBCL

You've heard about this "open source" thingy, haven't you? If you're
pissed off, do something about it instead of complaining. Or pay
someone to do it. Or try one of the commercial solutions.

pls....@gmail.com

unread,
May 2, 2008, 10:14:57 AM5/2/08
to
On 2 Mag, 14:25, scholz.lot...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...] looked at alternative non mainstream languages.

What's wrong with ECL? (small, stable, threads).

Not as fast as SBCL, but stable on *all* platforms.

-PM

Brian

unread,
May 2, 2008, 10:51:11 AM5/2/08
to
I downloaded the binary installer for SBCL on Windows not too long
ago.

It had the disclaimer about your kitten of death is awaiting, but I
was pleased.

No multithreading, but the code I tried worked well. If your heap
gets too big (because say you turn off the GC), it will drop you to a
debugger of sorts instead of just quitting.

scholz...@gmail.com

unread,
May 2, 2008, 11:33:47 AM5/2/08
to
On 2 Mai, 21:08, Edi Weitz <spamt...@agharta.de> wrote:

> You've heard about this "open source" thingy, haven't you? If you're
> pissed off, do something about it instead of complaining. Or pay
> someone to do it. Or try one of the commercial solutions.

I find commercials to expensive. LispWork Professional would cost me
8400 Euro.
Thats more then i make in one year. Franz is completely out of
question with
the royalities.

And isn't it you guys that always shout that LISP is the best of the
best but
even a simple non GUI port seems to be impossible for the community.
And i'm not
even start to talk about the Unicode or Multithreading problems that
the systems
still have.

scholz...@gmail.com

unread,
May 2, 2008, 11:35:31 AM5/2/08
to

Last time i tried it a compiled lisp program was a lot slower
then a compiled C++ program.

Edi Weitz

unread,
May 2, 2008, 11:44:38 AM5/2/08
to
On Fri, 2 May 2008 08:33:47 -0700 (PDT), scholz...@gmail.com wrote:

> LispWork Professional would cost me 8400 Euro.

Huh? LispWorks Professional costs 1200 Euros in Europe for commercial
customers:

http://www.lispworks.com/buy/prices-2c.html

> Thats more then i make in one year.

With less than 700 Euros per month it's kind of surprising that you
have a computer at all...

Edi Weitz

unread,
May 2, 2008, 11:45:02 AM5/2/08
to
On Fri, 2 May 2008 08:35:31 -0700 (PDT), scholz...@gmail.com wrote:

> Last time i tried it a compiled lisp program was a lot slower then a
> compiled C++ program.

Why don't you use C++ then?

Raymond Toy (RT/EUS)

unread,
May 2, 2008, 11:53:19 AM5/2/08
to
>>>>> "scholz" == scholz lothar <scholz...@gmail.com> writes:

>>
>> http://clozure.com/pipermail/openmcl-devel/2008-May/008169.html
>>
>> This is currently "only" about the x86 architecture, but I understand
>> the long-term plan is to also support Windows.

scholz> Well at the moment i'm pissed of from the long-term plan of CMUCL/
scholz> SBCL
scholz> which is telling me a port is on the way since 2001 when i first
scholz> looked
scholz> at alternative non mainstream languages.

Maybe you can help them instead of whining about it?

I'm pretty sure SBCL has a working version for windows.

Ray

Rainer Joswig

unread,
May 2, 2008, 1:40:33 PM5/2/08
to
In article
<8f4bfe1a-8747-407b...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
scholz...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 2 Mai, 21:08, Edi Weitz <spamt...@agharta.de> wrote:
>
> > You've heard about this "open source" thingy, haven't you? If you're
> > pissed off, do something about it instead of complaining. Or pay
> > someone to do it. Or try one of the commercial solutions.
>
> I find commercials to expensive. LispWork Professional would cost me
> 8400 Euro.

Edi already answered that.

Corman CL is an alternative. $249, for students $125.
http://www.cormanlisp.com/
The non-IDE part is without cost.

> Thats more then i make in one year. Franz is completely out of
> question with
> the royalities.
>
> And isn't it you guys that always shout that LISP is the best of the
> best but
> even a simple non GUI port seems to be impossible for the community.
> And i'm not
> even start to talk about the Unicode or Multithreading problems that
> the systems
> still have.

The commercial versions (Franz, LispWorks, Corman CL, ...) are
all very good. Users who really have the need to support Windows
usually use one of those with excellent results. Most of the other
people I know just avoid Windows.

--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/

David Golden

unread,
May 2, 2008, 2:51:48 PM5/2/08
to
scholz...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 2 Mai, 21:08, Edi Weitz <spamt...@agharta.de> wrote:
>
>> You've heard about this "open source" thingy, haven't you? If you're
>> pissed off, do something about it instead of complaining. Or pay
>> someone to do it. Or try one of the commercial solutions.
>
> I find commercials to expensive. LispWork Professional would cost me
> 8400 Euro.
> Thats more then i make in one year. Franz is completely out of
> question with
> the royalities.


So, indeed, basically what you care about is "gratis". Rather missing
the point of open source, but even so, if you really wanted to use
mainline (rather than experimental windoze port) SBCL in particular so
bad, you could just get linux gratis and use SBCL on it instead. The
latest ubuntu even includes an install-to-a-file-on-a-windows-partition
option if you're scared of repartitioning. Wouldn't cost anything but
your time, and clearly that's not worth much.


pls....@gmail.com

unread,
May 2, 2008, 5:06:29 PM5/2/08
to
On 2 Mag, 17:35, scholz.lot...@gmail.com wrote:
> Last time i tried it a compiled lisp program was a lot slower
> then a compiled C++ program.

Last time I tried (about 1 hour ago or so...), I interfaced ECL
(inlining(!) C code) with a C++ library.

In the (rare) cases where I really need speed at its possible maximum,
I simply shift these parts to the C side.

Works great for me. (But maybe I'm to strange an animal, just like
"LISP", emm, sorry, Lisp, the Common one.)

-PM

Dimiter "malkia" Stanev

unread,
May 2, 2008, 8:04:59 PM5/2/08
to
Lars Rune Nřstdal wrote:
> scholz...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> http://clozure.com/pipermail/openmcl-devel/2008-May/008169.html
>>>
>>> This is currently "only" about the x86 architecture, but I understand
>>> the long-term plan is to also support Windows.
>>
>> Well at the moment i'm pissed of from the long-term plan of CMUCL/
>> SBCL
>> which is telling me a port is on the way since 2001 when i first
>> looked
>> at alternative non mainstream languages.
>>
>
> what about bringing the dependency on Linux to Win32 via
> coLinux
>
> http://www.colinux.org/
>
> ...i haven't tried this.. (no need)
>

In fact I've just tried this, with latest coLinux and
Ubuntu-7.10.ext3.2GB fs file and it works.

scholz...@gmail.com

unread,
May 2, 2008, 10:22:52 PM5/2/08
to
On 2 Mai, 22:44, Edi Weitz <spamt...@agharta.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 2 May 2008 08:33:47 -0700 (PDT), scholz.lot...@gmail.com wrote:
> > LispWork Professional would cost me 8400 Euro.
>
> Huh? LispWorks Professional costs 1200 Euros in Europe for commercial
> customers:

Yes 1200 for one plattform and one CPU. I only take the important OS:
FreeBSD,Linux,MacOSX,Windows,Solaris and then add the 32 and 64 bit
versions
for FreeBSD and Linux then you see who this adds up.

I had no problem if i could stay with 1200 Euro. And i do not believe
that
using LispWorks on Windows only and SBCL on all others is portable
without a
lot of additional work.

> http://www.lispworks.com/buy/prices-2c.html
>
> > Thats more then i make in one year.
>
> With less than 700 Euros per month it's kind of surprising that you
> have a computer at all...

I'm now living in the Thailands Northern jungle and thanks i'm doing
fine
would guess that you look with envy eyes on my living style.

scholz...@gmail.com

unread,
May 2, 2008, 10:34:55 PM5/2/08
to
On 3 Mai, 01:51, David Golden <david.gol...@oceanfree.net> wrote:


> So, indeed, basically what you care about is "gratis".

No i mean cost effective. A initial payment for the price of a good
house and then few thousand bucks each year just for support is way
over the top of the price/value relation.

I guess a good Lisp could give me a better performance but not
for this price. When i think about the additional cost of an Eiffel-
>Lisp
port of my 200K Loc program then i believe something it is just not
worth
and there is no ROI.

Ken Tilton

unread,
May 2, 2008, 11:24:06 PM5/2/08
to

scholz...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm now living in the Thailands Northern jungle and thanks i'm doing
> fine
> would guess that you look with envy eyes on my living style.

My development team wants to know if you can get some messages to their
families.

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

vanekl

unread,
May 2, 2008, 11:53:37 PM5/2/08
to

I run SBCL on my WinXP_SP2 box everyday.
coLinux is more stable than its host, and its fast.
I'm running the debian kernel for coLinux.

David Golden

unread,
May 3, 2008, 1:44:31 AM5/3/08
to
scholz...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 3 Mai, 01:51, David Golden <david.gol...@oceanfree.net> wrote:
>
>
>> So, indeed, basically what you care about is "gratis".
>
> No i mean cost effective.

And SBCL developers should work to save you money rather than
on whatever else they may want to work on because ... ?

> When i think about the additional cost of an Eiffel-Lisp
> port of my 200K Loc program

[EiffelStudio costs about EUR4K per platform, or about 1/250th the cost
of a "good house" here]

Thomas F. Burdick

unread,
May 3, 2008, 5:54:06 AM5/3/08
to
On May 3, 7:44 am, David Golden <david.gol...@oceanfree.net> wrote:

> scholz.lot...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 3 Mai, 01:51, David Golden <david.gol...@oceanfree.net> wrote:
>
> >> So, indeed, basically what you care about is "gratis".
>
> > No i mean cost effective.
>
> And SBCL developers should work to save you money rather than
> on whatever else they may want to work on because ... ?

Because he's angry, duh. Geez, all you people who tell him that he
doesn't "get" open source obviously don't "get" angry. Me want
now!!!! AARG!

scholz...@gmail.com

unread,
May 3, 2008, 6:31:38 AM5/3/08
to
On 3 Mai, 12:44, David Golden <david.gol...@oceanfree.net> wrote:
> [EiffelStudio costs about EUR4K per platform, or about 1/250th the cost
> of a "good house" here]

No EiffelStudio costs 499 US$ per Plattform if you sign up for the
small company program that would be 320 Euro at the moment. Thats
fair.

But i'm using a derivat of Small/SmartEiffel at the moment.

EL

unread,
May 3, 2008, 6:31:47 AM5/3/08
to
Edi Weitz schrieb:

> Huh? LispWorks Professional costs 1200 Euros in Europe for commercial
> customers:

That's still a lot! Especially compared to slime, or a free Eclipse for
Java, free C# Development studios etc...
Does the productivity that you gain with this program justify it's price?


--
Eckhard

EL

unread,
May 3, 2008, 6:43:37 AM5/3/08
to
scholz...@gmail.com schrieb:

> I'm now living in the Thailands Northern jungle and thanks i'm doing
> fine

Out of curiosity: Are there computers, network etc. in the Thailand
northern jungle?

> would guess that you look with envy eyes on my living style.

So, if the answer to the question above is yes:
With your new living style you don't have time to hack on SBCL for
Windows? If this is the case, I am not envy at all ;).


--
Eckhard

scholz...@gmail.com

unread,
May 3, 2008, 7:21:52 AM5/3/08
to
> Out of curiosity: Are there computers, network etc. in the Thailand
> northern jungle?

2MBit ADSL line

> > would guess that you look with envy eyes on my living style.
>
> So, if the answer to the question above is yes:
> With your new living style you don't have time to hack on SBCL for
> Windows? If this is the case, I am not envy at all ;).

Well even 700 Euro are not flying into your mouth if you are still
young and attractive.

John Thingstad

unread,
May 3, 2008, 7:45:50 AM5/3/08
to
På Fri, 02 May 2008 08:43:20 +0200, skrev <scholz...@gmail.com>:

> How is the windows progress on the SBCL and CMUCL versions for Lisp?
> Has anything be done in the last two years?
>
> Webpages hasn't changed since then and both say experimental or still
> no public code.
>

look up Mozart like in Oz 3.
Awesome language, by the loks of it.

--------------
John Thingstad

Edi Weitz

unread,
May 3, 2008, 10:02:44 AM5/3/08
to
On Fri, 2 May 2008 19:22:52 -0700 (PDT), scholz...@gmail.com wrote:

> would guess that you look with envy eyes on my living style.

Nah, I prefer actually doing something over complaining. But to each
his own...

Edi.

Edi Weitz

unread,
May 3, 2008, 10:06:22 AM5/3/08
to
On Sat, 03 May 2008 12:31:47 +0200, EL <eckhar...@gmx.de> wrote:

>> Huh? LispWorks Professional costs 1200 Euros in Europe for
>> commercial customers:
>
> That's still a lot!

It might be a lot if programming is your hobby. If you're doing it
for a living, it's nothing.

> Especially compared to slime, or a free Eclipse for Java, free C#
> Development studios etc... Does the productivity that you gain with
> this program justify it's price?

For me, yes. YMMV.

Edi.

scholz...@gmail.com

unread,
May 3, 2008, 10:25:34 AM5/3/08
to
On 3 Mai, 21:06, Edi Weitz <spamt...@agharta.de> wrote:
>
> > That's still a lot!
>
> It might be a lot if programming is your hobby. If you're doing it
> for a living, it's nothing.

It's still expensive if you are a micro-isv. Where the fuck come the
idea
that all programming/software jobs are high paid jobs?

And if you take the yearly fee you have to pay 200 Euro. So we are not
talking
about a 8400 Euro one time but also 1400 Euro. And this is not the
enterprise
edition but a very small system that the guys haven'T improved a lot
in the last
7 years. That stinks.

When i realize that there will be no more then a simple 10% incremnt
in productivity it is even harder to justify. For me Lisp would be
nice to have
thats why i come back every two years but i don't see any real
improvements
at all. At least none that make the gap (in productivity - state of
the art technology)
larger.


Rainer Joswig

unread,
May 3, 2008, 10:38:14 AM5/3/08
to
In article
<66e4fba9-fcf3-41c4...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
scholz...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 3 Mai, 21:06, Edi Weitz <spamt...@agharta.de> wrote:
> >
> > > That's still a lot!
> >
> > It might be a lot if programming is your hobby. If you're doing it
> > for a living, it's nothing.
>
> It's still expensive if you are a micro-isv. Where the fuck come the
> idea
> that all programming/software jobs are high paid jobs?
>
> And if you take the yearly fee you have to pay 200 Euro. So we are not
> talking
> about a 8400 Euro one time but also 1400 Euro. And this is not the
> enterprise
> edition but a very small system that the guys haven'T improved a lot
> in the last
> 7 years. That stinks.

What are you talking about? You don't need to buy the systems
for all platforms. Just for your development platform
would be a start. Then you either deliver with it on
platforms that you actually have customers for or you
deliver with some other Lisp.

Not improved 'a lot' in the last years?
Well, given that you are not a user of it, you talk with
a lot of confidence. My impression is that Version 5 is a
huge improvement over the previous version.

> When i realize that there will be no more then a simple 10% incremnt
> in productivity it is even harder to justify. For me Lisp would be
> nice to have
> thats why i come back every two years but i don't see any real
> improvements
> at all. At least none that make the gap (in productivity - state of
> the art technology)
> larger.

See you in two years.

--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/

EL

unread,
May 3, 2008, 11:05:35 AM5/3/08
to
Edi Weitz schrieb:

> It might be a lot if programming is your hobby. If you're doing it
> for a living, it's nothing.

Well, I know many people for whom programming is *not* a hobby, and who
do it with free tools. I am also not at all inclined to ban commercial
software.


>> Especially compared to slime, or a free Eclipse for Java, free C#
>> Development studios etc... Does the productivity that you gain with
>> this program justify it's price?
>
> For me, yes. YMMV.

Still don't know what is so special about it, but anyway...


--
Eckhard

David Golden

unread,
May 3, 2008, 11:45:31 AM5/3/08
to
scholz...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 3 Mai, 12:44, David Golden <david.gol...@oceanfree.net> wrote:
>> [EiffelStudio costs about EUR4K per platform, or about 1/250th the
>> [cost
>> of a "good house" here]
>
> No EiffelStudio costs 499 US$ per Plattform if you sign up for the
> small company program that would be 320 Euro at the moment. Thats
> fair.
>

Perhaps they have some reduced price for people in the "northern
jungles of thailand", but that is < 1/10th of the USD5999 price they
publically list.
https://www.eiffel.com/purchase/

Rainer Joswig

unread,
May 3, 2008, 1:29:52 PM5/3/08
to
In article <vM%Sj.25286$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie>,
David Golden <david....@oceanfree.net> wrote:

Note that they too charge you for every single platform.
LispWorks looks extremely affordable against what
the Eiffel guys list.

But anyway dev tools provide by a vendor are never cheap.
SUN expects you to buy lots of expensive machines to
run a VM-based language that has sub-optimal performance.
IBM sells commercial versions of Eclipse and tries to
fight against SUN (Netbeans) with free crack.
Hey, and you order lots of expensive consultants from
IBM Global Services. Then there are other commercial
vendors like Borland (jBuilder), JetBrains (intellij),
bea/ORACLE (WebLogic), ...
Then there are commercial vendors for Ada, Prolog,
Pascal/Delphi, C compiler vendors, ...

The Lisp market is not that large. Say, a Lisp company
has five employees at 50000 Euros per year each.
Plus other expenses. Then you can calculate depending
on some price how many sales they have to make
to pay for the expenses and be profitable. Lower
the price. Will the added number of sales still
add up to the same revenue? Make it more expensive
(add more capabilities).
You loose number of sales - still it might be attractive
to get a more expensive and capable product.
So there has to be some middle ground. Still the price
will not appeal to everybody. The typical commercial developer
should be able to buy it. Those who don't really need it
(like Lothar) and/or can't afford at that price (like
Lothar) won't buy it. I wouldn't complain. If I can't
afford a BMW 5 series car, it does not help to complain about that.
It won't make the car cheaper and it won't help much getting
some funding.

As I said, for Windows there is also Corman CL, which is much more
affordable.

--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/

EL

unread,
May 3, 2008, 1:57:44 PM5/3/08
to
Rainer Joswig schrieb:

> If I can't
> afford a BMW 5 series car, it does not help to complain about that.

Do you know how /small/ they are in fact ;-)? I was amazed lately... so
less space inside!


--
Eckhard

Rainer Joswig

unread,
May 3, 2008, 2:02:35 PM5/3/08
to
In article <fvi92o$n3q$00$1...@news.t-online.com>,
EL <eckhar...@gmx.de> wrote:

Don't know. How big are you?

--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/

Alex Mizrahi

unread,
May 3, 2008, 2:22:53 PM5/3/08
to
??>> What's wrong with ECL? (small, stable, threads).
??>>
??>> Not as fast as SBCL, but stable on *all* platforms.

sl> Last time i tried it a compiled lisp program was a lot slower
sl> then a compiled C++ program.

have you tried optimizing it, i.e. adding type declarations?


Cor Gest

unread,
May 3, 2008, 6:17:50 PM5/3/08