Subject: Re: Lisp versus C++ for AI. software From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1996/10/14 Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.genetic,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> [Rainer Joswig] | Well, I'm using XEmacs daily. It is my preferred editor on Unix | (maybe there is a version for Windows). FWIW, GNU Emacs runs on Windows 95 and NT, too. | > Another big problem with Lisp is you can't make a small, stand-alone | > binary with it. The smallest application you can build is usually | > about a megabyte. Hard drives are so large now that this may finally | > not be such a problem anymore. (I'm referring now to my experience | > with Common Lisp. I'm sure Scheme systems can make smaller | > binaries.) | | True. but... Wade L. Hennessey's WCL uses shared libraries to produce very small binaries (smaller than C++ with GCC). granted, the shared libraries are enormous, but enormous shared libraries don't stop people who use other enormous shared libraries from pointing to their small, not-so-stand-alone binaries and gloat. with WCL, Common Lisp programmers can do the same if they wish. WCL runs on SPARCs with SunOS and Solaris. it seems not to be maintained. <URL:ftp://cdr.stanford.edu/pub/wcl/> #\Erik -- I could tell you, but then I would have to reboot you.