Re: Regarding Lisp/Scheme
justinhj wrote:
CLISP is the interpreted one, right? Yeah, I could, but I want better
performance than that. It might be reasonable to use it as a test
target though, if the builds and APIs aren't hard to maintain. I will
cross that bridge when/if I come to it.
It's byte code compiled. I've not really done anything that I've needed
native compilation for yet.
I would say if you're planning on selling a game written in lisp then
you would be best off buying one of the commercial lisp packages like
allegro, since it has native compilation and you can distribute your
games without the source code.
Yes; or, CMUCL / SBCL ports may be far enough along when I'm getting
ready to ship, that I could help push 'em over the edge.
I'm pretty sure if you used CLISP for a commercial program you would
have to ship the source code with it?
Hrm, CLISP uses GNU Readline, which is a GPL poison pill.
http://clisp.cons.org/faq.html#gpl However, it looks like one could
dance around these issues somehow. I won't be shipping with a bytecoded
Lisp anyways, though.
Also you'd need the cygwin.dll to
run it on win32 and I'm not sure what the licensing implications of
that are, could anyone remind me?
If you get stuck with needing cygwin1.dll, hey presto your code is now
GPL. You can compile without it, but the problem is, the Cygwin
toolchain has many stacked libraries that are built with it by default.
So you've got this huge build engineering job to contend with to get rid
of cygwin1.dll. That's worth it if you already have some code you know
you want to ship, but it's a damn dodge of a task to take up front. I
was willing to deal with Cygwin and defer the cygwin1.dll purge issue.
Cygwin, unlike MinGW, has the virtue of being well packaged and heavily
used by lotsa people, so it actually works. MinGW environments are damn
difficult to reproduce, there's so much build labor involved because
it's the *Minimalist* GNU for Windows. The reality of GNU toolchains is
you typically need tons and tons of stacked libraries, there's nothing
minimalist about it at all.
You could also consider MIT Scheme. That has native compilation on
Win32. You'd just need to hook up an interface to directx or opengl.
Again I'm not sure if you would have to give away source.
I am moving to the more supported and standardized Common Lisp universe
for now. In particular, Scheme has no credible equivalent to UFFI.
Apparently, almost nobody likes "SRFI 50: Mixing Scheme and C."
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-50/ Some have even wondered why it's
still listed as 'draft' status and hasn't been withdrawn.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
Brandon's Law (after Godwin's Law):
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of
a person being called a troll approaches one RAPIDLY."
.
Relevant Pages
- Re: Is ECMAScript really a dialect of Lisp?
... clearly Lisp source code is not text. ... offering any explanation as to what a scripting language is. ... JavaScript and you can use Common Lisp to script a Java application; ...
(comp.lang.lisp) - Re: Parsing s-expression trees
... expressions --> lisp. ... the irregularity in its often cited regular syntax. ... programers can pretty much tell what piece of source code ... Lisp relies on a regular nested syntax. ...
(comp.lang.lisp) - Re: Is ECMAScript really a dialect of Lisp?
... compiled or interpreted or even transformed into other source code) ... in that context within the overall LET-macro form. ... Step 1: Start up Common Lisp. ... produce pointy structure as return value ...
(comp.lang.lisp) - Re: When is Xah going to ease up on Emacs...
... Fundamental Problems of Lisp ... However, the lisp syntax has ... it allows transformation of the source code by a simple ... what this means is that lisp's lists is ...
(comp.lang.lisp) - GNU RCS 5.8.1 available
... actually removes something: the rcsintromanpage. ... Lastly, a note about the repo (see "source code", below) for the ... GNU RCS manages multiple revisions of files. ...
(gnu.announce) |
|
