5 ms·

which lisp interpreter did you use ?

• nameless912 10y ago
  Common Lisp would imply SBCL, that's my guess at least.
  • fiddlerwoaroof 10y ago
    There are half a dozen CL implementations, for various purposes: sbcl, ccl and open source implementations with built in compilers. ecl is similar, but designed to be easily embeddable in C applications clasp is a newer one that's built on top of llvm (still unstable, as far as I can tell, but actively developed) abcl targets the jvm platform and, consequently, can gives you access to all the libraries in the Java ecosystem. And then there are commercial implementations like LispWorks and Allegro that have their own benefits: Lispworks has, I here, a very nice cross-platform GUI library and, although I don't know much about it, I suspect Allegro has it's own perks. And, because of the community's emphasis on avoiding implementation-specific behaviors, which implementation you choose isn't that big a deal: I regularly develop a project under multiple implementations, and seldom have major issues doing so.
• Guthur 10y ago
  It baffles me that this notion of Lisp as an interpreted language still persists. Common Lisp is a compiled language for all non toy implementations, and in general Lisps have had compilers for decades.
  • nine_k 10y ago
    Having a good REPL is important, though.
    • hydandata 10y ago
      Having a REPL does not necessitate interpreting http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Compiler_002donly-Implementation http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Compiler_002donly-Implementation
    • nabla9 10y ago
      REPL and interpretation are orthogonal concepts. SBCL (most common CL implementation) don't have interpreter at all. It complies into machine code before execution even in REPL.
      • juki 10y ago
        SBCL actually does have an interpreter, but doesn't use it by default. You can set sb-ext:*evaluator-mode* to :INTERPRET to enable it. http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Interpreter http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Interpreter
      • lispm 10y ago
        Though, to be fair, a 'real' Lisp interpreter often provides more interactive features. The Lisp interpreter sees the code as Lisp data and interprets that. This enables a few things.
        • lokedhs 10y ago
          You don't need an interpreter for that. SBCL (as does other compilers) always compiles an expression prior to executing it, even when it's code as data passed to EVAL.
          • lispm 10y ago
            > You don't need an interpreter for that. For what? > You don't need an interpreter for that. SBCL (as does other compilers) always compiles an expression prior to executing it, even when it's code as data passed to EVAL. True, but that's not what a Lisp interpreter does and provides. I was talking about the difference between an interpreter and a (possibly interactive) compiler. The interpreter works over source code as Lisp data. The compiler does not - it does not matter that the compiler compiles individual forms. At runtime the code is machine code. With an interpreter the code is Lisp data. Think about it: What difference could that make, if the code gets actually executed by a real Lisp interpreter?
  • PuercoPop 10y ago
    It baffles me that people refer to languages as interpreted or compiled. That is a property of the implementation of the not the language.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
• hydandata 10y ago
  No interpreters used, mostly SBCL and CCL. Folks over at Grammarly have a blog post which mentions few reasons for the combo http://tech.grammarly.com/blog/posts/Running-Lisp-in-Production.html http://tech.grammarly.com/blog/posts/Running-Lisp-in-Product... I write portable code and use libraries which abstract away implementation specific stuff so it will be easy to run on any other conforming implementation should the need arise. The community is quite responsible when it comes to portability and utility libraries which help with it, but on top of that Quicklisp maintainer tests library compilation on most major implementations and reports bugs.