jerry@sfsup.UUCP (01/22/87)
If you were forced to write LISP code on a PC, what interpreter (ie. name of product and manufacturer) would you buy? Thank you, Jerry Theisen attunix!jerry
coffee@aero.ARPA (Peter C. Coffee) (01/24/87)
In article <1048@sfsup.UUCP> jerry@sfsup.UUCP writes: >If you were forced to write LISP code on a PC, what interpreter (ie. >name of product and manufacturer) would you buy? > The February issue of AI Expert begins a three-part wrap-up of microcomputer LISPs; both the series and I really see no alternative to the Gold Hill products if you want a quality development environment where the editor really supports the process. Caveats: dynamic scoping in the PC version's interpreter, one-dimensional limit on arrays, limited floating-point on the PC version. The AT-specific version, though, is a thing of beauty that is making our Symbolics users' eyes bug out. Cheers, Peter C.
spiros@ahxenix.UUCP (01/27/87)
In article <6472@aero.ARPA>, coffee@aero.UUCP writes: > In article <1048@sfsup.UUCP> jerry@sfsup.UUCP writes: > >If you were forced to write LISP code on a PC, what interpreter (ie. > >name of product and manufacturer) would you buy? > > > > The February issue of AI Expert begins a three-part wrap-up of microcomputer > LISPs; both the series and I really see no alternative to the Gold Hill > products if you want a quality development environment where the editor > really supports the process. Caveats: dynamic scoping in the PC version's > interpreter, one-dimensional limit on arrays, limited floating-point on the > PC version. The AT-specific version, though, is a thing of beauty that is > making our Symbolics users' eyes bug out. > Cheers, Peter C. Additional Caveats: Ridiculous price (is it around 900 bucks for the development system? I seem to remember around $595 for the interpreter based system), Ridiculous copy protection scheme (one of the most annoying to live with). Oh well. Spiros -- Spiros Triantafyllopoulos spiros@ahxenix.uucp
forbus@uiucdcsp.UUCP (01/28/87)
>The February issue of AI Expert begins a three-part wrap-up of microcomputer >LISPs; both the series and I really see no alternative to the Gold Hill >products if you want a quality development environment where the editor >really supports the process. Caveats: dynamic scoping in the PC version's >interpreter, one-dimensional limit on arrays, limited floating-point on the >PC version. If it isn't lexically scoped it isn't Common Lisp. GEMACS, on both GCLISP and GCLISP-LM, is a complete dog. Anyone who has used a serious lisp machine will slowly go mad if forced to use it for any length of time. Frankly, I would not recommend running GCLisp on a PC or XT at all. It's so slow it is frustrating. If you aren't going to use Common Lisp, then I think TI's PC-SCHEME is clearly the implementation of choice. Their editor, while no speed demon, is better than Gold Hill's. Split-screen mode (one half lisp, one half editor) is a real win. Their compiler works on the PC, and works well (including tail recursion optimization). Bignums are suported. Performance, given the machine limitations, is quite good: TI-Scheme on an XT is more fun to use than GCLisp-LM on an AT. At $100, TI has really done the world a terrific favor. >The AT-specific version, though, is a thing of beauty that is >making our Symbolics users' eyes bug out. > Cheers, Peter C. >/* End of text from uiucdcsp:comp.lang.lisp */ This is a joke, right? I've used Symbolics machines for years, and I've also developed over 200 pages of code for instructional purposes to run on our lab of 32 AT's running GCLisp-LM. While GCLisp-LM is fine for many instructional purposes, I could not recommend it for serious research or development. Compare: you can put 16MB of RAM on your AT, or you can put 16MB of RAM on your Symbolics machine AND have 200MB of virtual memory. Guess which computer can run larger programs and horse around more data? Not to mention the relative quality of the programming environments... GCLisp-LM is a fine product, even though it has numerous bugs and glitches. But people are fooling themselves if they think an AT is sufficient for most AI work. You may wonder why Gold Hill is way overdue on their PC version with lexical scoping, and is spending all their time on the 386 version. If I were them I'd do the same thing -- the 386 is closer to being a machine that can run Lisp well.
coffee@aero.UUCP (01/31/87)
In article <316@ahxenix.REL.COM> spiros@ahxenix.REL.COM...writes: >In article <6472@aero.ARPA>, coffee@aero.UUCP writes: >> >> The February issue of AI Expert begins a three-part wrap-up of microcomputer >> LISPs; both the series and I really see no alternative to...Gold Hill... > >Additional Caveats: > >Ridiculous copy protection scheme... The Gold Hill 286 product is not copy protected in any way. The copy protection on the PC version is, I agree, obnoxious, but I wouldn't recommend anything less than the 286 version for real work anyway. Spiros also objected to the price of the 286 system @ $900; the price is an objective fact, but we find it worth the money compared to any system of comparable performance. Cars & cdrs, Peter C.
coffee@aero.UUCP (01/31/87)
In article <80300002@uiucdcsp> forbus@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: << (Attributions deleted -- my reply to original question follows) >> >>The February issue of AI Expert begins a three-part wrap-up of microcomputer >>LISPs; both the series and I really see no alternative to...Gold Hill... > >>The AT-specific version...is a thing of beauty that is >>making our Symbolics users' eyes bug out. >> Cheers, Peter C. > >This is a joke, right? I've used Symbolics machines for years, and I've >also developed over 200 pages of code for instructional purposes... >Guess which computer can run larger programs and horse around more data? >Not to mention the relative quality of the programming environments... As I recall, the original query was specifically directed to PC environments. Further, I didn't say that our Symbolics users were ready to switch machines; I intended to indicate that they were impressed by the performance and the quality of the environment IN RELATION TO SYSTEM COST, which has been known to be a factor for some of us... Let's read replies in the context of the original message and be a little less quick with the derisive flames, hmm? Peter C.
forbus@uiucdcsp.UUCP (02/01/87)
>As I recall, the original query was specifically directed to PC >environments. Yes, and I pointed out that for PC's you would almost certainly be better off with TI-SCHEME than GCLisp. You brought up the AT environments. >Further, I didn't say that our Symbolics users were ready >to switch machines; I intended to indicate that they were impressed by >the performance and the quality of the environment IN RELATION TO SYSTEM >COST, which has been known to be a factor for some of us... I suggest you might write more plainly then. The unadorned statements "a thing of beauty" and "makes their eyes bug out" would tend to imply that. >Let's read replies in the context of the original message and be a little >less quick with the derisive flames, hmm? > Peter C. >/* End of text from uiucdcsp:comp.lang.lisp */ There is a larger context that one must also be aware of: Many people are being irresponsible in giving the impression that current micros can perform at the level of real lisp machines (I'm not accusing Peter of this, his response clearly shows him not of that ilk). Right now they just can't. (I'm certainly rooting for them, I'd very much like to get my research machines fixed by throwing them into the back seat of my car and driving them to the local ComputerLand!) If people get the impression that that kind of performance is already here, then if they fail to get the results they want using a micro then they might conclude "AI is no good" as opposed to "Okay, the computing power isn't here yet/isn't cheap enough yet". I am a strong fan of attempts to get affordable, micro-based AI environments distributed. The combination of GCLisp-LM and AT's has enabled our AI courses to provide much better "hands-on" experience than ever before. I would not have dreamed of developing my "Building Problem Solvers" course without them. HOWEVER: They are also currently not powerful enough for most serious AI research, and one should be realistic about that. Given the degree of AI hype floating around these days, I think one must be extra careful not to mislead people.
michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (02/04/87)
In article <80300002@uiucdcsp> forbus@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: : : >If you aren't going to use Common Lisp, then I think TI's PC-SCHEME is >clearly the implementation of choice... Their compiler works on the PC, >and works well (including tail recursion optimization)... >Performance, given the machine limitations, is quite good: TI-Scheme on an >XT is more fun to use than GCLisp-LM on an AT... Could you expand on this? I skimmed the article (I don't have access to it now). My impression was that the benchmarks showed *compiled* GCL to be lots faster than byte-compiled Scheme; I understand there is no true compiled Scheme for Intel-based machines. Or did you mean TI Scheme was lots faster than *interpreted* GCL? (There is no interpreted/compiled distinction in TI Scheme, right?) BTW, I understand TI Scheme can now address up to 2 megs of expanded (extended?) memory on an AT class machine. That number sounds a bit odd to me--if it can get past the 640k limit, why not up to 16 megs? Or am I too ignorant of the 80286 architecture? How much of that 2 megs is left for user programs under various conditions (w/ and w/o editor, in production versions of code vs. development environment, etc.)? -- Mike Maxwell Boeing Advanced Technology Center arpa: michaelm@boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm
forbus@uiucdcsp.UUCP (02/10/87)
I haven't tried TI-Scheme on an AT. You are correct about the incremental compiling. Unfortunately, Gold Hill has not yet produced a true Common Lisp for the PC (remember those?), much less a compiler. I wish they would. Their AT compiler takes at least 3MB of RAM, so if they get one out soon I'll be impressed. If they don't bother I won't be surprised. Their future, along with everyone else's, is with more modern micros.