4 ms·

Steel Bank Common Lisp Version 1.0.38 released

47 points by jgg 16y ago

amouat 16y ago
You've linked to the sourceforge project page, a better link is probably the web page at: http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/ http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/ Or http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/news.html http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/news.html if you were highlighting the latest release.
jluxenberg 16y ago
For those curious about the origin of the name, this is fork of CMU CL. CMU is a university located in Pittsburgh, a city with a history as a steel town.
- jdale27 16y ago
  More precisely, Carnegie and Mellon, after whom CMU is named, made their fortunes in steel and banking.
- strlen 16y ago
  Carnegie was a steel baron. Melon was a banker. Hence Carnegie Mellon became "steel bank".
- malkia 16y ago
  Other language implementations starting with SB were Stony Brook Pascal (back in the DOS days). It used to be one of the best Pascal implementations.
marcusbooster 16y ago
Of notable interest, they're added the sb-concurrency module. The best part about lisp is how it can incorporate new programming ideas into the normal syntax.
- tedunangst 16y ago
  Sigh. I'm pretty sure I could add lock free queues to C without changing the syntax. lockfree_enqueue(queue, whatnot); whatnot = lockfree_dequeue(queue); Looks just like all the rest of my C code. The part of me that wants to learn lisp dies a little every time I read one of these "look how awesome lisp is" comments because I'm afraid I'll end up spouting such nonsense.
  - zachbeane 16y ago
    It's easy to add new things to Lisp and C when the interface looks mostly like function invocation. It's easier to extend Lisp with things that aren't a lot like function invocation, because C syntax and the C preprocessor don't work together as well as Lisp syntax and Lisp macros. I wouldn't worry much about spouting nonsense when you learn new things unless you're prone to that already.
crazydiamond 16y ago
Is there any point learning SBCL or CMUCL today for actually writing applications using Lisp, or is Clojure a better choice? Basically, I want to learn lisp, but also write some apps in it. I keep hearing that people use lisp for prototyping and then rewrite in some other language.
- pchristensen 16y ago
  SBCL is definitely worth learning and is fine for writing applications. Should you choose it over Clojure? Tougher question. There's a lot, lot, lot of good books and documentation about CL but Clojure has popularity and momentum. No matter which you choose, I don't think you can go wrong.
  - crazydiamond 16y ago
    Will one's learning carry over easily from one lisp to another (one CL to another), and onto Clojure ?
    - jgg 16y ago
      That's a good question, actually. The answer is: Yes and no. Scheme, Emacs Lisp, Common Lisp and Clojure are all different, certainly. For example, when you look at programming texts, you realize that there really is a "Scheme" way of doing things and a "Common Lisp" way of doing things, which aren't always the same. That being said, if you learn one dialect, that will probably make learning another much easier. If you're new to the Lisp thing, I'd learn Scheme.
- calibraxis 16y ago
  It depends on the apps you want to write, as well as what you already know. (For example, if you know your way around Javadocs and Java classpaths, Clojure rises as a possibility.) I suggest skimming through a few pages of Planet Clojure and Planet Lisp, to get a sense of the apps people are writing. As a rough rule of thumb, if one excites you much more, that could be the better choice. If you end up going with CL, you'll likely have a better time asking newbie questions on LispForum (or mailing lists like the LispWorks one), rather than on Usenet. And there are alternatives to SBCL and CMUCL, such as ECL and LispWorks: http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html As for prototyping-then-rewriting, I think there are a few situations: 1) nontechnical reasons (such as, the maintainers can't be expected to maintain a Lisp app) 2) because the Lisp implementation is missing some convenient functionality, and it isn't easy to call an existing one in another language 3) the Lisp doesn't interoperate well with a given technical ecosystem I think the probability of rewriting is less with Clojure, due to its Java interop, long-term goals of interop with other platforms (like .NET), and the increasing number of teams using it.

47 points by jgg 16y ago

You've linked to the sourceforge project page, a better link is probably the web page at: http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/ http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/ Or http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/news.html http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/news.html if you were highlighting the latest release.

jluxenberg 16y ago

For those curious about the origin of the name, this is fork of CMU CL. CMU is a university located in Pittsburgh, a city with a history as a steel town.

jdale27 16y ago
More precisely, Carnegie and Mellon, after whom CMU is named, made their fortunes in steel and banking.
strlen 16y ago
Carnegie was a steel baron. Melon was a banker. Hence Carnegie Mellon became "steel bank".
malkia 16y ago
Other language implementations starting with SB were Stony Brook Pascal (back in the DOS days). It used to be one of the best Pascal implementations.

marcusbooster 16y ago

Of notable interest, they're added the sb-concurrency module. The best part about lisp is how it can incorporate new programming ideas into the normal syntax.

tedunangst 16y ago
Sigh. I'm pretty sure I could add lock free queues to C without changing the syntax. lockfree_enqueue(queue, whatnot); whatnot = lockfree_dequeue(queue); Looks just like all the rest of my C code. The part of me that wants to learn lisp dies a little every time I read one of these "look how awesome lisp is" comments because I'm afraid I'll end up spouting such nonsense.
- zachbeane 16y ago
  It's easy to add new things to Lisp and C when the interface looks mostly like function invocation. It's easier to extend Lisp with things that aren't a lot like function invocation, because C syntax and the C preprocessor don't work together as well as Lisp syntax and Lisp macros. I wouldn't worry much about spouting nonsense when you learn new things unless you're prone to that already.

crazydiamond 16y ago

Is there any point learning SBCL or CMUCL today for actually writing applications using Lisp, or is Clojure a better choice? Basically, I want to learn lisp, but also write some apps in it. I keep hearing that people use lisp for prototyping and then rewrite in some other language.

pchristensen 16y ago
SBCL is definitely worth learning and is fine for writing applications. Should you choose it over Clojure? Tougher question. There's a lot, lot, lot of good books and documentation about CL but Clojure has popularity and momentum. No matter which you choose, I don't think you can go wrong.
- crazydiamond 16y ago
  Will one's learning carry over easily from one lisp to another (one CL to another), and onto Clojure ?
  - jgg 16y ago
    That's a good question, actually. The answer is: Yes and no. Scheme, Emacs Lisp, Common Lisp and Clojure are all different, certainly. For example, when you look at programming texts, you realize that there really is a "Scheme" way of doing things and a "Common Lisp" way of doing things, which aren't always the same. That being said, if you learn one dialect, that will probably make learning another much easier. If you're new to the Lisp thing, I'd learn Scheme.
calibraxis 16y ago
It depends on the apps you want to write, as well as what you already know. (For example, if you know your way around Javadocs and Java classpaths, Clojure rises as a possibility.) I suggest skimming through a few pages of Planet Clojure and Planet Lisp, to get a sense of the apps people are writing. As a rough rule of thumb, if one excites you much more, that could be the better choice. If you end up going with CL, you'll likely have a better time asking newbie questions on LispForum (or mailing lists like the LispWorks one), rather than on Usenet. And there are alternatives to SBCL and CMUCL, such as ECL and LispWorks: http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html As for prototyping-then-rewriting, I think there are a few situations: 1) nontechnical reasons (such as, the maintainers can't be expected to maintain a Lisp app) 2) because the Lisp implementation is missing some convenient functionality, and it isn't easy to call an existing one in another language 3) the Lisp doesn't interoperate well with a given technical ecosystem I think the probability of rewriting is less with Clojure, due to its Java interop, long-term goals of interop with other platforms (like .NET), and the increasing number of teams using it.