Prev: Lisp and ncurses
Next: check for non empty string
From: Duane Rettig on 19 Dec 2009 18:15
On Dec 19, 2:10 pm, "W. James" <w_a_x_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> jos...(a)corporate-world.lisp.de wrote:
> > Common Lisp is 'Common Lisp' or shorter 'CL'.
>
> A.k.a. "COBOL-LISP", "Commune Lisp", "Commode Lisp", etc.

No.
From: Francisco Vides Fernández on 20 Dec 2009 10:53
Cecil Westerhof wrote:

> "joswig(a)corporate-world.lisp.de" <joswig(a)lisp.de> writes:
>
>> That's a good choice.
>>
>> CLISP, an implementation of Common Lisp ;-) , should be quite useful
>> for that.
>> It requires relatively little memory, has a byte code compiler and
>> has useful support for 'scripting'.
>
> I was thinking to switch to sbcl in the near future. Is clisp better as
> sbcl for scripting, or is there not a big difference?
>

SBCL recently incorpored the --script wich I'm routinely using for nice
system programming (previously known as scripting :)

You can write something like

#!/usr/bin/sbcl --script

(format t "Hi, I'm scripting~%")

Name it something like hi.cl or whatever, adjust the execution bit, and
thats it!

Also you can load it from REPL (e.g. (load "hi.lisp")) and debug as any
other lisp program. Very high niceness score.

hth

--
+-----------------
| Francisco Vides Fernández <fvides(a)dedaloingenieros.com>
| Director técnico.
| Dédalo Ingenieros http://www.dedaloingenieros.com/
| PGP: http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=0xB1299C15
+------
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Lisp and ncurses
Next: check for non empty string