4 ms·

I believe the most commonly used implementation is OpenLisp: http://christian.jullien.free.fr/ http://christian.jullien.free.fr/ There's also EuLisp: http://

I believe the most commonly used implementation is OpenLisp: http://christian.jullien.free.fr/ http://christian.jullien.free.fr/ There's also EuLisp: http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~jeff/lisp/eulisp.html http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~jeff/lisp/eulisp.html I'd love to hear from someone who has tried either and can compare to Scheme, CL or Clojure.

auvi 13y ago
The Common LISP committee didn't have any representative from Europe and I think it should have people from the other side of the Atlantic.
- enupten 13y ago
  Bit late for that don't you think :) The Europeans (like the rest of the world), probably don't care much for lisp these days.
  - qznc 13y ago
    There seem to be a few Lisp conferences in Europe http://weitz.de/eclm2013/ http://weitz.de/eclm2013/ http://quasiconf.twoticketsplease.de/ http://quasiconf.twoticketsplease.de/ http://www-sop.inria.fr/members/Manuel.Serrano/conferences/els13.html http://www-sop.inria.fr/members/Manuel.Serrano/conferences/e...
  - levosmetalo 13y ago
    Well, I'd go as far as saying that it's the Europeans that keep (Common) Lisp still alive.
  - agumonkey 13y ago
    I can speak for France, there was a nice Lisp culture back in the days, many current teachers did research in Lisp and keep using it in courses (plt scheme was the first language given to students in 2000-2007). Maybe they're too busy on ml/ocaml nowadays I guess.
jwr 13y ago
I wanted to, several years ago (between 2002-2004, in a commercial project, embedded setting). It was quite good on paper, with a simplified specification (compared to Common Lisp, which is huge) and several nice additions. I liked the simple object system. The problem was with the implementations — too few, too buggy, too few people using it. These days I would not bother with it, given that we have Clojure and its approach to concurrency. In really small embedded environments I'd go with something smaller than ISLisp, with an implementation that is easier to understand and possibly fix if there is a problem.
- 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
  > These days I would not bother with it, given that we have Clojure And Racket. And a variety of Scheme implementations. The spirit/sentiment of ISLisp seems similar to traditional, pre RSR6 Scheme. But I guess ISLisp would appeal if it's similar to some other, older Lisp systems?
  - jwr 13y ago
    Yes, for small things I'd consider a Scheme — though I have to admit that every time I tried to use Scheme, it turned out that doing relatively simple real-world things (such as dealing with files or network) was unnecessarily complex.
lispm 13y ago
EuLisp is not ISLisp.

auvi 13y ago

The Common LISP committee didn't have any representative from Europe and I think it should have people from the other side of the Atlantic.

enupten 13y ago
Bit late for that don't you think :) The Europeans (like the rest of the world), probably don't care much for lisp these days.
- qznc 13y ago
  There seem to be a few Lisp conferences in Europe http://weitz.de/eclm2013/ http://weitz.de/eclm2013/ http://quasiconf.twoticketsplease.de/ http://quasiconf.twoticketsplease.de/ http://www-sop.inria.fr/members/Manuel.Serrano/conferences/els13.html http://www-sop.inria.fr/members/Manuel.Serrano/conferences/e...
- levosmetalo 13y ago
  Well, I'd go as far as saying that it's the Europeans that keep (Common) Lisp still alive.
- agumonkey 13y ago
  I can speak for France, there was a nice Lisp culture back in the days, many current teachers did research in Lisp and keep using it in courses (plt scheme was the first language given to students in 2000-2007). Maybe they're too busy on ml/ocaml nowadays I guess.

jwr 13y ago

I wanted to, several years ago (between 2002-2004, in a commercial project, embedded setting). It was quite good on paper, with a simplified specification (compared to Common Lisp, which is huge) and several nice additions. I liked the simple object system. The problem was with the implementations — too few, too buggy, too few people using it. These days I would not bother with it, given that we have Clojure and its approach to concurrency. In really small embedded environments I'd go with something smaller than ISLisp, with an implementation that is easier to understand and possibly fix if there is a problem.

6cxs2hd6 13y ago
> These days I would not bother with it, given that we have Clojure And Racket. And a variety of Scheme implementations. The spirit/sentiment of ISLisp seems similar to traditional, pre RSR6 Scheme. But I guess ISLisp would appeal if it's similar to some other, older Lisp systems?
- jwr 13y ago
  Yes, for small things I'd consider a Scheme — though I have to admit that every time I tried to use Scheme, it turned out that doing relatively simple real-world things (such as dealing with files or network) was unnecessarily complex.

lispm 13y ago

EuLisp is not ISLisp.