M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
znmeb at cesmail.net
Sun Sep 30 12:22:52 PDT 2007
Tom Novelli wrote:
> If CL is the first choice, Scheme is a close second. Fare used to favor
> Scheme, but he favors CL now... he's written a lot about the merits of
> each over the years, on the list, his blog, and elsewhere. He uses CL
> at ITA. Tril's "Max" reflection project is in CL... Slate was
> bootstrapped in CL... and there are other Tunes members who prefer CL.
> It seems like this is one thing we can agree on.
> I don't want to drive away talented people who happen to hate CL,
> however. (I'm a reformed Lisp-hater myself.) We're trying out ideas,
> and anything that works in another language ought to work in CL; and if
> not, that's a shortcoming we'll eventually need to address in our HLL.
I don't hate CL ... as long as Termite can be ported to SBCL, I don't
see any reason not to go with SBCL.
> I like PLT Scheme. It's friendly, complete, and runs on all the major
> operating systems (unlike the *free* Common Lisps). While friendly, the
> IDE is a little clunky... I'd get frustrated using it for serious
> programming, but it's a good starting point.
If SBCL doesn't run in Windows, it's pretty close. I assume you are
referring to *native* operation on Windows, not "MinGW/MSYS" or Cygwin
operation! The other "major operating systems" (Mac OSX, Solaris, Linux
and *BSD) shouldn't be a problem for any open source package.
> SBCL, like CMUCL, compiles to native code. Not that it matters, as it's
> a complex monolithic system, and Fare assures me that we can't use the
> "compembler method" to extend it at the machine code level -- or rather,
> it would be even more work than building a clean *reflective
> environment* (TUNES itself) from scratch.
> Maybe we could write a "Tunes compatibility layer" for CL and a few
You should only have to write two compatibility layers -- one for ANS
Common Lisp and another for the "prevailing" Scheme standard. The Gambit
people voted against the latest Scheme standard, so it's probably "N - 1".
> I ran Gentoo until 6 months ago... I was spending too much time
> re-compiling & configuring programs... I wanted something that *just
> works*, so I tried Ubuntu and I'm happy with it. In particular, Lisp
> and Emacs work great with little configuration; under Gentoo this was a
> pain in the butt. Gentoo scared me away from Lisp/Emacs.
The Gentoo Lisp/Emacs setup was derived from Debian's. However, the main
Gentoo Lisp developer "retired" and I'm not sure who's watching the
>> By the way, since you haven't asked, what am *I* currently working on? :)
>> 1. I've got a dual-core 4 GB Athlon64 X2 and I'm using AMD's
>> "CodeAnalyst" to tune the Ruby interpreter on it. It's no great
>> difficulty to install Gambit, Dr Scheme and SBCL (they're all in
>> Gentoo and up to date) and profile them as well.
> I've got the same thing, just because it was cheap... I'm not exactly
> pushing its limits. Anyway, I guess you'll just let us know which
> implementation takes advantage of the dual-core best?
When I first got the machine, I tried them all -- Etch, Ubuntu (Feisty,
IIRC), CentOS 5, Fedora 7, and Gentoo 2007.0. They all pretty much were
new releases concurrently with my getting the hardware. I was prepared
to hate Fedora, but I was pleasantly surprised. Fedora (Core) < 7 is
useless. Etch and CentOS were both rock-solid, stable, boring, etc.
Either one would make a fine production machine, although I'd give the
edge to CentOS for that because there are more Red Hat trained sysadmins
than there are Debian trained ones.
But for a scientific workstation, the choice is really between Fedora,
Gentoo, or Ubuntu/Lenny/Sid. Normally my ranking would be Gentoo,
Ubuntu/Lenny/Sid, Fedora. But I just couldn't work with Ubuntu. I don't
remember all the gory details, but it ended up being a dead tie between
Fedora and Gentoo. I didn't want to switch my brain from Gentoo to
Fedora, so I went with (stayed with) Gentoo.
More information about the TUNES