[ILUG] c[ommon] lisp v emacs lisp

[James McCarthy]

when i say clisp, i do mean gnu's implementation of common lisp
as far as all the advice I'm overwhelmed, if this is the attitude of
the lisp programming community, great.
Thanks for the advice big time, I'm definitely going to have a try at
scheme as well.

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 22:03:23 +0000, David Golden
<david.golden at oceanfree.net> wrote:
> Sean has already replied, but I'll just chime in anyway, 'cos I also
> like and use lisp:
> 
> To be  vaguely on-topic for a sec, I note there's presently a
> perceptible leaning towards Debian GNU+Linux among the Libre Common
> Lisp crowd - free lisp compilers and third-party lisp libs are
> ready-packaged in debian.  If you're a debian user, the major free
> common lisp implementations are an apt-get away.
> 
> There is a larger-than-you-might-think free common lisp community
> focussed on  http://cliki.net
> 
> Heh. Maybe there's enough Irish Lispers now for an IL(isp)UG... (Or
> maybe there already is one, and they just haven't told me because I
> smell weird.)
> 
> On Wednesday 08 December 2004 16:23, James McCarthy wrote:
> > im going to be learning lisp pretty soon(after the 16th of december)
> > and i was wondering which is better, emacs lisp or common lisp.
> >
> 
> Common Lisp, for pretty much anything unless you happen to be writing
> scripts for a general text-editor/virtual-machine/kitchen-sink thingy
> called emacs.
> 
> But you might want to consider Scheme too, if you prefer
> small-and-pretty theoretical elegance   ("Traitor! Unclean!" cry the
> denizens of comp.lang.lisp.  Bah. Learn both I say, you'll be better
> for it.)
> 
> Note that if you're using one of the Libre Common Lisp implementations
> (e.g. cmucl, sbcl, clisp), you'd be mad not to install emacs + SLIME to
> interact with it, anyway.
> 
> Just a note re the subject line:
> 
> "clisp" is the name of a particular implementation of the language
> standard "Common Lisp".  It's a small,  portable bytecode VM
> implementation, and very good in its way.
> 
> There are several other free and closed-source implementations, e.g.
> CMUCL, a rather nice free type-inferencing lisp compiler, or its
> friendly-fork SBCL, which has greater focus on portability, and native
> threading support on Linux.
> 
> So it is conventional in the common lisp community to use "clisp" to
> mean the GNU clisp implementation, and CL or just "Lisp" to mean Common
> Lisp.
> --
> Irish Linux Users' Group
> http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug/
> 
>