mark@vuwcomp.UUCP (Mark Davies) (10/28/86)
As part of a distributed systems project that we are currently developing,
we require a Lisp for the Macintosh. Are there any good systems readily
available?
Requirements
o Reasonably `powerful' lisp implementation
o Access to the Macintosh toolbox
o Access to routines written in other languages
e.g. network routines written in C
o Ability to `dump' snapshots of an environment.
i.e. generate new load bands
We have a copy of MacScheme 1.01. Are the more recent versions any better?
I have heard mention of ExperLISP, has anyone had experience with this
product? Is it any good?
I also noticed in a recent Byte ExperCommonLISP -- Is this a separate
product or a development of the above? Is it a full CommonLisp
implementation?
What else is available?
Repies by Email please. I will summarise to the net if there is
interest.
Thanks
Mark
--
UUCP: ...!{alberta,ubc-vision}!calgary!vuwcomp!mark
ACSnet: mark@vuwcomp.nzverber@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark Verber) (10/31/86)
There are four 'real' Lisp compilers for the Macintosh that will
let you do the critical things you are interested in:
#1. MacScheme with Toolsmith. Toolsmith gives full access to
the toolbox in a very nice way. Toolsmith is currently in
beta test but is very nice. The only complaint I have is
that it is slow (but then again I am use to Sun-3s).
#2. ExperLisp. I don't recommend this compiler. The compiler is
buggy. They advertise that it is CommonLisp compatible but
it doesn't support closures, use lexical scoping or have
multiple name spaces. I guess you can call it CommonLisp
since the function names are the same. I have talked to a
number of Lisp implimentors about the product, and all have
felt that the ExperLisp compiler just wasn't that hot.
#3. OakLisp. This is an experimental Object Scheme which runs
on Symbolics, Macintoshes and Suns. I believe only the
Symbolics version is running (although I am guessing).
It might be released, then again, it might not. You can
see a description of it in the Proceedings from OOPSLA86.
OakLisp is a high preformance dialect of Scheme with
objects as first class entities. It is modelled after
T (from Yale) and should be very high preformance, and give
access to the toolbox.
#4. PSL (Portable Standard Lisp). This also is not done yet.
Rummor has it that Kessler is porting the entire SysLisp
compiler to the Macintosh. SysLisp is a dialect of PSL
which is designed to product high-preformance software,
specificely other compilers and tools. PSL is very much
like MacLisp for the DECsystem-20 and generates very fast
code.
Cheers,
Mark A. Verber verber@ohio-state.arpa (internet)
The Ohio State University verber@ohio-state.csnet (csnet)
+1 (614) 422-0915 cbosgd!osu-eddie!verber (uucpnet)coffee@aero.ARPA (Peter C. Coffee) (11/04/86)
In article <2501@osu-eddie.UUCP> verber@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark Verber) writes: >There are four 'real' Lisp compilers for the Macintosh... : >#2. ExperLisp. I don't recommend this compiler. The compiler is > buggy. They advertise that it is CommonLisp compatible but > it doesn't support closures, use lexical scoping or have > multiple name spaces. I guess you can call it CommonLisp > since the function names are the same. I have talked to a > number of Lisp implimentors about the product, and all have > felt that the ExperLisp compiler just wasn't that hot. I regularly work on a Symbolics 3640 and on MS-DOS machines as well as on a MacPlus with ExperLisp. ExperLisp 1.5 is quite stable, with generally higher speed than earlier releases; it's usually about triple the speed of interpreted GCLisp on a 7MHz 8086. The user interface is sublime. It does _not_ produce stand-alone applications, but if you can wait until early December they may have a surprise for you (a non- disclosure agreement prevents me from saying more). BTW, ExperLisp has _always_ been lexically scoped, even though this put severe constraints on lambda expressions in earlier releases: 1.5 fixes these. On a 1 MB Mac Plus, I find that ExperLisp 1.5 with 24000 cons cells and 4800 symbols allocated runs from 1-3% the speed of compiled Common Lisp on a 2 MB Symbolics 3640. I have no commercial relationship with ExperTelligence, though they have expressed an interest in marketing my on-line documentation system for ExperLisp (still in development) as an enhancement product. If I didn't like ExperLisp, however, I wouldn't bother... Regards, PC