Lisp on Mac OS X
in [Lisp]
|
From: Thomas A. Russ on 11 Feb 2010 17:12 Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche(a)math.ntnu.no> writes: > + Duke Normandin <dukeofperl(a)nospam.net>: > > > I have some newLISP experience, but new to LISP. > > > > From the OS X ports collection, I have the choice of installing: > > > > openmcl, sbcl, gcl (GNU), ecl, clisp, abcl (java), and ccl (clozure) > > > > I'm reading and learning from, "Practical Common Lisp", by Peter Seibel, > > wherein he recomends "Lisp in a Box". Unfortunately, I don't see such a > > bundle for OS X. What bits-n-pieces would I need to cobble something > > similar on my own? Or is it even worth doing so? If you want one of those lisp systems, I would recommend sbcl or ccl. For an easier start I would suggest the Clozure CCL integrated application at http://trac.clozure.com/ccl I would ignore the svn instructions and just download the *.dmg file and use the pre-packaged application. You could also use the LispWorks or Franz Allegro free editions. http://www.lispworks.com/ http://www.franz.com/ > > Recommendations please, would be appreciated. TIA... > > I am quite happy with sbcl myself, but several of the others may by just > as good. I just haven't tried them much. > > For lisp in the box, I figure you need emacs and slime in addition. If > you want to get sbcl, emacs and slime from ports, you should be able to > do so in one fell swoop with: Well, Aquamacs.app includes slime, so that makes it a bit easier. If Aquamacs is installed, then configuring slime is a simple matter of adding (setq inferior-lisp-program "/opt/local/bin/sbcl") to your .emacs init file, with the proper location of the installed lisp software that you want to use. Aquamacs: http://aquamacs.org/ -- Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
From: Duke Normandin on 11 Feb 2010 23:16 On 2010-02-11, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl(a)nospam.net> wrote: > I have some newLISP experience, but new to LISP. > > From the OS X ports collection, I have the choice of installing: > > openmcl, sbcl, gcl (GNU), ecl, clisp, abcl (java), and ccl (clozure) > > I'm reading and learning from, "Practical Common Lisp", by Peter Seibel, > wherein he recommends "Lisp in a Box". Unfortunately, I don't see such a > bundle for OS X. What bits-n-pieces would I need to cobble something > similar on my own? Or is it even worth doing so? > > Recommendations please, would be appreciated. TIA... Thanks to all that replied! Much appreciated... Polling results: CCL=3 LWCL=2 SBCL=2 @Raffael Sure OS X is GUI intensive, but I do _a lot_ of work from the terminal. My newsreader is `slrn' ;) Thanks for the input! @Ron G. I was wondering about OpenMCL and CCL! Thanks for clearing that up... You put CCL in the lead ;) @Harald Got slime and emacs! Just need to tweak my ~/.emacs file to populate "slime-lisp-implementations" @Thomas Got Aquaemacs as well... love it. You put CCL in front of the pack.... @Marco Added your vote for LWCL. Thanks.. Is there any reason why I cannot / should not have more than one CL implementation installed? Say something like SBCL and CCL. Any potential conflicts? -- Duke *** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** Turner Valley, Alberta, Canada
From: Aleksandr Vinokurov on 12 Feb 2010 03:07 On Feb 11, 10:52 pm, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...(a)nospam.net> wrote: > I have some newLISP experience, but new to LISP. > > From the OS X ports collection, I have the choice of installing: > > openmcl, sbcl, gcl (GNU), ecl, clisp, abcl (java), and ccl (clozure) > > I'm reading and learning from, "Practical Common Lisp", by Peter Seibel, > wherein he recomends "Lisp in a Box". Unfortunately, I don't see such a > bundle for OS X. http://www.gigamonkeys.com/lispbox/ -- Allegro CL & CCL are in bundles for OS X. I'm on reading this book too, and I've choosen Allegro CL. As I understand Peter Siebel uses standard CL language and does not digg in differencies of implementations... So we will not find any GUI quirks in his book :) Aleksandr
From: Raymond Toy on 12 Feb 2010 07:43 On 2/11/10 11:16 PM, Duke Normandin wrote: > > Is there any reason why I cannot / should not have more than one CL > implementation installed? Say something like SBCL and CCL. Any potential > conflicts? I have CCL, ecl, clisp, and CMUCL installed. (I mostly use CMUCL, but the other three get used once in a while with maxima.) They all work just fine. (I used to have Lispworks and Allegro too.) Ray
From: Thomas A. Russ on 12 Feb 2010 14:17
Duke Normandin <dukeofperl(a)nospam.net> writes: > Is there any reason why I cannot / should not have more than one CL > implementation installed? Say something like SBCL and CCL. Any potential > conflicts? No particular reason. I actually have a bunch installed: CCL, LW-Personal, SBCL, CMUCL, CLISP, ABCL. Normally I use sbcl or ccl for most operations. The others are for compatibility testing of our software. But they don't interfere with each other, so you can have as many as you like. Although for someone just starting out, I would pick one and stick with that for a while so that you can concentrate on learning lisp and not spend time figuring out all the different interactions. As long as you stay in standard common lisp, whatever you write will be easily portable. The reason we have to do compatibility testing is for cases around the edges where there is implementation-specific behavior (for example, the exact details of logical pathname translation definitions) -- Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute |