Re: allegro cl installer -- A.I built in, all the way DOWN

(message (Hello 'Rainer)
(you :wrote :on '(Sun, 29 Oct 2006 14:12:21 +0200))
(

RJ> You seem to have all kinds of problems with Common Lisp
RJ> implementations and nobody seems to be able to help you.
RJ> Why struggle?

i like the syntax :)
but implementations make me sad..

afaik Mono guys made stable .NET platform in relatively short time, i wonder
why Lisp guys were not able to do same.

RJ> Why not just switch to Java?

i did that, sort of. i'm currently using Armed Bear Common Lisp, based on
Java. and i have less problems with it than with other implementations i
used. if it breaks down, i typically know where to fix it.
however it has some unfixable problem -- CLOS crashes with hardware
multithreading.. and it's quite slow. so i'm afraid i won't be able to use
it in production environment, if i ever do any production..

(actually i only program Lisp as a 'hobby'; at work i mainly use C++. it
constantly crashes, but that's what C++ was designed for :)

)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I/O in Lisp
    ... > code is portable across Common Lisp implementations. ... certainly the language standard provides no way to do it. ... > Common Lisp provides an abstract data type called a CHARACTER, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Common Lisp / Scheme comparison
    ... spec and several implementations dozens of variously comprehensive ... Fully reentrant continuations. ... C numeric types plus bignums Implementation-defined numeric types, ... Common Lisp just wins on numeric implementations provide blazing speed ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Interesting developments since "Beating the averages"?
    ... the differences between Common Lisp and Scheme, the conventional wisdom that they get here is that Scheme is a minimalist standard, in order to get anything practical done with it one needs a library that brings it up to the level of Common Lisp and, since in Common Lisp the library is standardized and in Scheme it's typically implementation specific, Common Lisp is in that respect superior. ... You don't need standards to get things done, you only need portable libraries. ... It seems that the only solution would then be to drop Common Lisp and go with a new Lisp dialect that doesn't suffer from the large number of implementations. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: CL implementations and tail-call optimization
    ... optimization across various Common Lisp implementations? ... which implementationI should be focusing on if I need support for TCO, ... tail call elimination than Common Lisp is not the best choice. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Identifying CL Implementations?
    ... >> accepted) method to identify Common Lisp implementations? ... you end up with a de facto standard ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)