From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7d3530220909070554q27a95bc8mf8ad670fcdf37008@mail.gmail.com> References: <1d5d51400909070029o5610bb4wb45eed2596313c9b@mail.gmail.com> <283f5df10909070547i33935f1bs91a4ab9cbdb590e2@mail.gmail.com> <7d3530220909070554q27a95bc8mf8ad670fcdf37008@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 21:19:38 +0800 Message-ID: <1d5d51400909070619r4d137ea9q43b3b8836c77df2f@mail.gmail.com> From: Fernan Bolando To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [9fans] lisp again. Topicbox-Message-UUID: 68d3185a-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:54 PM, John Floren wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM, LiteStar numnums wrote: >> Well, lisp != common lisp aside, I wouldn't mind a native CL system. I >> haven't looked at the SBCL backend in quite sometime, but, assuming it's not >> terribly insane, that would be a decent route. Most CL work that isn't >> specific to one of the proprietary systems (Allegro, LispWorks, &c.) is >> written with SBCL or, to a lesser extent, CCL. If anyone's interested in >> working on a CL port to plan9, I'll start a lisp cabal, that can work on >> other systems next. >> >> I'll look today... > [previous message and grotesque signature snipped] > > One challenge with SBCL and some other implementations is that you > need a Common Lisp system already in place to compile them. I looked > into Clisp, which can be compiled with a C compiler, but after > fighting configure for a while I quit. > Last time I looked into this, I was comparing different version of a common lisp systems to see which one might be easy enough to port during the weekend. I remember I dropped to at least 3 1. gcl-1.0 2. ecl-8.12 3. clisp -- I guess I can remove this from my list fernan -- http://www.fernski.com