CMUCL vs GCL - comp.lang.lisp

For first user, give me information about commnon lisp tools. At google, most page go to CMUCL. But i also interested in GCL (GNU Common Lisp). What is best choice? -- "You know who I am?" -- Vito Corleone, "Chapter 1", page 52

Byung-Hee HWANG <bh@izb.knu.ac.kr> writes: > For first user, give me information about commnon lisp tools. At google, > most page go to CMUCL. But i also interested in GCL (GNU Common > Lisp). What is best choice? Ah.. and please review about SBCL which from CMUCL ;; -- "Lawyers can steal more money with a briefcase than a thousand men with guns and masks." -- Vito Corleone, "Chapter 14", page 218

Byung-Hee HWANG <bh@izb.knu.ac.kr> writes: > Byung-Hee HWANG <bh@izb.knu.ac.kr> writes: > >> For first user, give me information about commnon lisp tools. At google, >> most page go to CMUCL. But i also interested in GCL (GNU Common >> Lisp). What is best choice? > > Ah.. and please review about SBCL which from CMUCL ;; Sorry for confused. After all, i settled down at CLISP (from GNU) ;; Still i'm baby for Common Lisp, many many help me from now on ^^; Thanks, -- "Get that man out here to me." -- Michael Corleone, "Chapter 23", page 334

On 02/12/2010 01:10 PM, Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: > Byung-Hee HWANG<bh@izb.knu.ac.kr> writes: > >> Byung-Hee HWANG<bh@izb.knu.ac.kr> writes: >> >>> For first user, give me information about commnon lisp tools. At google, >>> most page go to CMUCL. But i also interested in GCL (GNU Common >>> Lisp). What is best choice? >> >> Ah.. and please review about SBCL which from CMUCL ;; > > Sorry for confused. After all, i settled down at CLISP (from GNU) ;; > Still i'm baby for Common Lisp, many many help me from now on ^^; Please read this review of the different options. http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html Clisp is good. If you are interested in CMUCL for speed, SBCL is another good option (it forked from CMUCL many years ago). GCL is not widely used today. My suggestion: stay with clisp until it causes a problem. By then, you should have learned enough to pick another implementation more suitable to your needs. The ansi standard and many portability libraries make it easy to switch. - Daniel

BHH> For first user, give me information about commnon lisp tools. At BHH> google, most page go to CMUCL. But i also interested in GCL (GNU BHH> Common Lisp). What is best choice? The best choice depends on your goals and priorities. If you're learning Common Lisp and do not have concrete tasks yet, a good choice for Linux would be SBCL, CMUCL or CLISP. SBCL is, perhaps, the most popular and most actively developed implementation, so it is a good idea to use it -- there are good chances that you'll find lots of libraries etc. GCL is, basically, an antique piece of shit. If you're interested in integration with C (e.g. embedding CL in a C program), try ECL. It is similar to GCL, but it is actively maintained.

On Feb 12, 6:28=A0pm, Byung-Hee HWANG <b...@izb.knu.ac.kr> wrote: > For first user, give me information about commnon lisp tools. At google, > most page go to CMUCL. But i also interested in GCL (GNU Common > Lisp). What is best choice? > > -- > "You know who I am?" > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- Vito Corleone, "Chapter 1", page 52 For learning purposes whichever you want BESIDE GCL here's a link with some material and one word mention of each implementation http://tourdelisp.blogspot.com/2009/02/learning-common-lisp The best info would be Dan's survey though one implementation XCL appeared after the survey was made. best Slobodan

D Herring wrote: > On 02/12/2010 01:10 PM, Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: >> Byung-Hee HWANG<bh@izb.knu.ac.kr> writes: >> >>> Byung-Hee HWANG<bh@izb.knu.ac.kr> writes: >>> >>>> For first user, give me information about commnon lisp tools. At >>>> google, >>>> most page go to CMUCL. But i also interested in GCL (GNU Common >>>> Lisp). What is best choice? >>> >>> Ah.. and please review about SBCL which from CMUCL ;; >> >> Sorry for confused. After all, i settled down at CLISP (from GNU) ;; >> Still i'm baby for Common Lisp, many many help me from now on ^^; > > Please read this review of the different options. > http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html > > Clisp is good. If you are interested in CMUCL for speed, SBCL is > another good option (it forked from CMUCL many years ago). GCL is not > widely used today. > > My suggestion: stay with clisp until it causes a problem. By then, you > should have learned enough to pick another implementation more suitable > to your needs. The ansi standard and many portability libraries make it > easy to switch. > > - Daniel See http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/lispbox/ the information there is a little bit outdated: Clozure Common LISP has SLIME and works under Windows Embeddable Common LISP is missing many others are missing Antti Ylikoski Helsinki, Finland, the EU

Antti "Andy" Ylikoski wrote: > D Herring wrote: >> On 02/12/2010 01:10 PM, Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: >>> Byung-Hee HWANG<bh@izb.knu.ac.kr> writes: >>> >>>> Byung-Hee HWANG<bh@izb.knu.ac.kr> writes: >>>> >>>>> For first user, give me information about commnon lisp tools. At >>>>> google, >>>>> most page go to CMUCL. But i also interested in GCL (GNU Common >>>>> Lisp). What is best choice? >>>> >>>> Ah.. and please review about SBCL which from CMUCL ;; >>> >>> Sorry for confused. After all, i settled down at CLISP (from GNU) ;; >>> Still i'm baby for Common Lisp, many many help me from now on ^^; >> >> Please read this review of the different options. >> http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html >> >> Clisp is good. If you are interested in CMUCL for speed, SBCL is >> another good option (it forked from CMUCL many years ago). GCL is not >> widely used today. >> >> My suggestion: stay with clisp until it causes a problem. By then, >> you should have learned enough to pick another implementation more >> suitable to your needs. The ansi standard and many portability >> libraries make it easy to switch. >> >> - Daniel > > See > > http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ > http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/lispbox/ > > the information there is a little bit outdated: > > Clozure Common LISP has SLIME and works under Windows > Embeddable Common LISP is missing > many others are missing > > Antti Ylikoski > Helsinki, Finland, the EU IMHO the CLISP contains bugs.... Never came across one in the Clozure CCL. Andy

"Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski" <antti.ylikoski@hut.fi> writes: > IMHO the CLISP contains bugs.... Never came across one in the Clozure CCL. Bugs are not typically matters of opinion. What bug did you encounter with CLISP? Perhaps it can be eliminated in future versions. Zach

Zach Beane wrote: > "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski" <antti.ylikoski@hut.fi> writes: > >> IMHO the CLISP contains bugs.... Never came across one in the Clozure CCL. > > Bugs are not typically matters of opinion. What bug did you encounter > with CLISP? Perhaps it can be eliminated in future versions. > > Zach Two times I have succeeded in crashing the CLISP, without any really informative error message. "CLISP.exe stopped working" or such was what I got. One bug which I can remember that I had a function such as (defun prove (goals depth mark continuation assertions) ..... ) and I had called it with (approximately) the argument list (prove '(append.....) 4 *trail* '(funcall ...) '(if () then ())) and as a result the program crashed because the argument "mark" was not given a value -- even though the global variable *trail* did have a value. (I discovered this with the debugger.) regards, Antti Ylikoski Helsinki, Finland, the EU PS. As one can guess, this program was a Prolog interpreter written in LISP. Idem

"Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski" <antti.ylikoski@hut.fi> writes: > Zach Beane wrote: >> "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski" <antti.ylikoski@hut.fi> writes: >> >>> IMHO the CLISP contains bugs.... Never came across one in the Clozure CCL. >> >> Bugs are not typically matters of opinion. What bug did you encounter >> with CLISP? Perhaps it can be eliminated in future versions. >> >> Zach > > Two times I have succeeded in crashing the CLISP, without any really > informative error message. "CLISP.exe stopped working" or such was > what I got. > > One bug which I can remember that I had a function such as > > (defun prove (goals depth mark continuation assertions) ..... ) > > and I had called it with (approximately) the argument list > > (prove '(append.....) 4 *trail* '(funcall ...) '(if () then ())) > > and as a result the program crashed because the argument "mark" was > not given a value -- even though the global variable *trail* did have > a value. (I discovered this with the debugger.) > > regards, Antti Ylikoski > Helsinki, Finland, the EU > > PS. As one can guess, this program was a Prolog interpreter written > in LISP. That's strange. Perhaps on MS-Windows this clisp.exe had not been compiled with all the nice libraries that are needed to get good handling of memory faults and stack overflows? This is not the kind of things clisp breaks on unix targets (approximately, it happens only with FFI). Perhaps you should give a complete and precise bug report on mailto:clisp-list@lists.sourceforge.net -- __Pascal Bourguignon__

Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski" <antti.ylikoski@hut.fi> writes: > >> Zach Beane wrote: >>> "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski" <antti.ylikoski@hut.fi> writes: >>> >>>> IMHO the CLISP contains bugs.... Never came across one in the Clozure CCL. >>> Bugs are not typically matters of opinion. What bug did you encounter >>> with CLISP? Perhaps it can be eliminated in future versions. >>> >>> Zach >> Two times I have succeeded in crashing the CLISP, without any really >> informative error message. "CLISP.exe stopped working" or such was >> what I got. >> >> One bug which I can remember that I had a function such as >> >> (defun prove (goals depth mark continuation assertions) ..... ) >> >> and I had called it with (approximately) the argument list >> >> (prove '(append.....) 4 *trail* '(funcall ...) '(if () then ())) >> >> and as a result the program crashed because the argument "mark" was >> not given a value -- even though the global variable *trail* did have >> a value. (I discovered this with the debugger.) >> >> regards, Antti Ylikoski >> Helsinki, Finland, the EU >> >> PS. As one can guess, this program was a Prolog interpreter written >> in LISP. > > That's strange. Perhaps on MS-Windows this clisp.exe had not been > compiled with all the nice libraries that are needed to get good > handling of memory faults and stack overflows? > > This is not the kind of things clisp breaks on unix targets > (approximately, it happens only with FFI). > > Perhaps you should give a complete and precise bug report on > mailto:clisp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > I'm not using the old MS-DOS. I'm running Microsoft Windows 7 in a laptop PC with an AMD dual-core processor running at 1.2 GHz, 3GB of RAM and 220 GB of hard disk. At this moment I'm using a local library's WLAN. regards, Antti J. Ylikoski Helsinki, Finland, the EU

On 02/20/2010 04:34 AM, Antti "Andy" Ylikoski wrote: > Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: >> "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski" <antti.ylikoski@hut.fi> writes: >>> Two times I have succeeded in crashing the CLISP, without any really >>> informative error message. "CLISP.exe stopped working" or such was >>> what I got. >>> >>> One bug which I can remember that I had a function such as >>> >>> (defun prove (goals depth mark continuation assertions) ..... ) >>> >>> and I had called it with (approximately) the argument list >>> >>> (prove '(append.....) 4 *trail* '(funcall ...) '(if () then ())) >>> >>> and as a result the program crashed because the argument "mark" was >>> not given a value -- even though the global variable *trail* did have >>> a value. (I discovered this with the debugger.) .... >> >> That's strange. Perhaps on MS-Windows this clisp.exe had not been >> compiled with all the nice libraries that are needed to get good >> handling of memory faults and stack overflows? >> >> This is not the kind of things clisp breaks on unix targets >> (approximately, it happens only with FFI). >> >> Perhaps you should give a complete and precise bug report on >> mailto:clisp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > > I'm not using the old MS-DOS. > > I'm running Microsoft Windows 7 in a laptop PC with an AMD dual-core > processor running at 1.2 GHz, 3GB of RAM and 220 GB of hard disk. MSWin version doesn't matter; the OS design is fundamentally different than unix, and clisp may need more customization. A stack overflow is not uncommon, even on a system with plenty of free RAM; the OS typically allocates a fixed stack size. Your bug report would probably help the developers, but make sure you can reproduce it with the latest version (2.48). - Daniel