Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey - lisp

On Dec 8, 3:05 pm, Daniel Weinreb <d...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> There are ten currently-maintained implementation of Common Lisp.
> What are they, and what are they like? What do they cost, are they
> open-source, and where do you get them? What platforms do they run on?
> Where did they come from? What platforms do they run on? Do they
> support threads, streams, CLIM, the CLOS MOP, and/or profiling?
> Answers to these questions and more can be found in my survey, at
>
> http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
>
> There's also a glossary of terms, a table of some major Common Lisp
> libraries showing which implementations are supported, a long list of
> papers about Common Lisp, some success stories of Common Lisp
> applications, a list of Common Lisp textbooks that are available
> online, and an extensive list of Common Lisp resources, all with
> links.
>
> -- Dan Weinreb

Yesterdau I wrote about choosing the right lisp implementation
http://tourdelisp.blogspot.com/2007/...mentation.html
though I was giving only a broad advice.
I will post an update including a link to your survey .

cheers
Slobodan

Nice work, thank you.
It seems that actually SBCL is the best implementation.

Javier <javuchi@gmail.com> writes:


> It seems that actually SBCL is the best implementation.

no, it is a bad implementation, as it lacks a C API,
unlike CLisp and ECL.
It can't even be compiled from source with gcc and GNU tools.

In addition, it lacks support for first-class environments,
unlike Clisp.

Klaus Schilling

In article <Qwx6j.2052$Bg7.1903@trndny07>,
Daniel Weinreb <dlw@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> There are ten currently-maintained implementation of Common Lisp.
> What are they, and what are they like? What do they cost, are they
> open-source, and where do you get them? What platforms do they run on?
> Where did they come from? What platforms do they run on? Do they
> support threads, streams, CLIM, the CLOS MOP, and/or profiling?
> Answers to these questions and more can be found in my survey, at
>
> http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
>
> There's also a glossary of terms, a table of some major Common Lisp
> libraries showing which implementations are supported, a long list of
> papers about Common Lisp, some success stories of Common Lisp
> applications, a list of Common Lisp textbooks that are available
> online, and an extensive list of Common Lisp resources, all with
> links.
>
> -- Dan Weinreb

GCL is not deader than usual. It may smell funny.

Judging from the mailing list and from the CVS there
is still activity.

There is maintenance for GCL 2.6.8 and work
on GCL 2.7.0. GCL is still used by active projects like
Maxima and ACL2, AFAIK.

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

På Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:54:30 +0100, skrev Rainer Joswig <joswig@lisp.de>:

> In article <Qwx6j.2052$Bg7.1903@trndny07>,
> Daniel Weinreb <dlw@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> There are ten currently-maintained implementation of Common Lisp.
>> What are they, and what are they like? What do they cost, are they
>> open-source, and where do you get them? What platforms do they run on?
>> Where did they come from? What platforms do they run on? Do they
>> support threads, streams, CLIM, the CLOS MOP, and/or profiling?
>> Answers to these questions and more can be found in my survey, at
>>
>> http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
>>
>> There's also a glossary of terms, a table of some major Common Lisp
>> libraries showing which implementations are supported, a long list of
>> papers about Common Lisp, some success stories of Common Lisp
>> applications, a list of Common Lisp textbooks that are available
>> online, and an extensive list of Common Lisp resources, all with
>> links.
>>
>> -- Dan Weinreb
>
> GCL is not deader than usual. It may smell funny.
>
> Judging from the mailing list and from the CVS there
> is still activity.
>
> There is maintenance for GCL 2.6.8 and work
> on GCL 2.7.0. GCL is still used by active projects like
> Maxima and ACL2, AFAIK.
>

GCL and ECL seem to have a common root Kyoto Lisp.
What is the difference between them?

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

On Dec 8, 10:15 am, Javier <javu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice work, thank you.
> It seems that actually SBCL is the best implementation.

I also really appreciate the resource.

However, I think the thing that stood out most was that there wasn't a
clear "best" implementation. As much as people complain about the
portability headaches that come from having a diversity of CL
implementations, and that certain desirable features aren't available
in a given combination, the list makes it obvious that there's also a
real variety of needs and priorities being served.

There's a large number of high-quality, actively developed, mature
Common Lisp implementations that are being actively developed. For
some reason this is regarded as a flaw in the language or in the
community, but I think it's a real strength, and one that's
particularly noteworthy given the relatively small size of the CL
community.

Cheers,
Pillsy

Some entity, AKA Pillsy <pillsbury@gmail.com>,
wrote this mindboggling stuff:
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)

> However, I think the thing that stood out most was that there wasn't a
> clear "best" implementation.

Compare it like cars, a Ferrari is capable of transporting manure, but
a Rolls-Royce is realy better suited for is has a bigger booth.

Cor

--
Alle schraifvauden zijn opzettelijk, teneinde ieder lafaard de kans te
geven over spelling te zeuren in plaats van in te gaan op de inhoud.
Unless you are prepared to die, do not treathen me or my family
(defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
spam delenda est

> There is maintenance for GCL 2.6.8 and work on GCL 2.7.0. GCL is still
> used by active projects like Maxima and ACL2, AFAIK.

Not entirely sure, but I believe Maxima won't build with GCL at the
moment.

Rupert

Klaus Schilling <schilling.klaus@web.de> writes:

> Javier <javuchi@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>> It seems that actually SBCL is the best implementation.
>
> no, it is a bad implementation, as it lacks a C API,
> unlike CLisp and ECL.

So, Clisp and ECL are better Common Lisp implementation than
SBCL because they have certain facilities/mechanisms that are not part
of Common Lisp?

> It can't even be compiled from source with gcc and GNU tools.

Oh, it can be compiled from source... you'll need a working
Lisp system (preferably SBCL, but certain other Lisps work, too). This
process is called bootstrapping, and you need certain infrastructure
before you have a self-hosting system.

> In addition, it lacks support for first-class environments,
> unlike Clisp.

So, Clisp is a better Common Lisp because it has certain
facilities/mechanisms that are not part of Common Lisp?

You're a fool, Klaus Schilling.