Subject: Re: What open source implementation of Lisp do you prefer and why?
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:51:55 -0600
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>
GP lisper  <> wrote:
| <> wrote:
| > CMUCL, because it's solid [IME], has a good compiler, and its
| moi aussi
| > - Rebuilding is a bit tricky. [But I tend to run the "-RELEASE"
| >   binaries without ever rebuilding.]
| The binaries always rebuild themselves.  In a few minutes of user
| time, I have a CMUCL that matches any libs in my system
| (i.e. openmotif) and picks up a little something from the CFLAGS.
| I can count on all legacy code to work as well as in the prior years.

Oh, I can rebuild it (now that I know how); it's just sometimes
a bit tricky to build one version with another. [E.g., CMUCL-19e
wouldn't run on my laptop's old version of FreeBSD, so I had to
rebuild it using a CMUCL-19c that *did* run on the old version
of FreeBSD.]

| ..and it doesn't have a phoney 'Common Lisp' tag.

Can you explain what you mean by that? Its name *is*
"CMU Common Lisp" (CMUCL) after all, and it *does* claim
to be an ANSI CL:

    cmu> (defun feature-grep (tag)
           (remove (string tag) *features* :key #'string :test-not #'search))

    cmu> (feature-grep 'lisp)

    cmu> (feature-grep 'ansi)



Rob Warnock			<>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607