jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) (03/13/90)
I find a description of VAX LISP in my DEC Direct Software Edition
that confuses me a bit. Are both VAX LISP/VMS and VAX LISP/ULTRIX
the same product (like VMS C and Ultrix vcc)?
Does anyone have any experience with VAX LISP/ULTRIX? Is it close
to a good implementation of Common Lisp? (The standard hasn't been
approved, right? But is it close to where the standard is headed?)
Oh yeah, if you have used VAX LISP/ULTRIX and know of a text that
would work in an introductory course that follows this LISP closely...
well that would be *wonderful*.
Thanks,
--
John Campbell ...!arizona!naucse!jdc
CAMPBELL@NAUVAX.bitnet
unix? Sure send me a dozen, all different colors.hall@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall) (03/13/90)
In article <1943@naucse.UUCP> jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) writes: >I find a description of VAX LISP in my DEC Direct Software Edition >that confuses me a bit. Are both VAX LISP/VMS and VAX LISP/ULTRIX >the same product (like VMS C and Ultrix vcc)? We have used VAX LISP/VMS and VAX LISP/ULTRIX for various AI courses that I have taught here at Johns Hopkins. The only difference seems to be in calling external routines and in the editing environment, neither of which is "standard" or which will effect LISP-only code. >Does anyone have any experience with VAX LISP/ULTRIX? Is it close >to a good implementation of Common Lisp? (The standard hasn't been >approved, right? But is it close to where the standard is headed?) The standard isn't yet approved by ANSI, but the current standard as laid out by Guy Steele in "Common LISP the Language" (1st ed) by Digital Press, is quite closely adhered to by VAXLISP. The complaints I have heard about VAXLISP are regarding performance or the development environment, not adherence to the standards. I have transferred several small to medium sized programs from Symbolics or Sun (Lucid) Common LISP to VAXLISP and they have worked the first time without any modifications. >Oh yeah, if you have used VAX LISP/ULTRIX and know of a text that >would work in an introductory course that follows this LISP closely... >well that would be *wonderful*. *Any* tutorial on Common LISP should be sufficient. One, "A Programmer's Guide to Common LISP", by Deborah Tatar, is by Digital Press, but I'm not sure that this is particularly an advantage. My feeling is that it is a good text, and I have used it a couple of times for my students. Two other choices: "LISP: A Gentle Intro to Symbolic Programming" by Dave Touretzky. It is back in the other office, so I might have the title off slightly. Anyhow, this is one of my current favorites as a tutorial for beginners. "Common LISPcraft" by Robert Wilensky is also popular. For references (not tutorials), Steele is required, and "Common LISP the Reference" by Franz Inc (Addison Wesley) covers each function in the current definition, with examples. You might consider the 2nd edition of Steele, which includes extensions proposed for the upcoming ANSI standard. - Marty Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------- hall@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu Artificial Intelligence Lab hall%aplcen.apl.jhu.edu@cunyvm.bitnet AAI Corp ..!uunet!aplcen!hall PO Box 126 (301) 683-6455 Hunt Valley, MD 21030