On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:54 PM, John Floren<slawmas...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM, LiteStar numnums<lites...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Well, lisp != common lisp aside, I wouldn't mind a native CL system. I >> haven't looked at the SBCL backend in quite sometime, but, assuming it's not >> terribly insane, that would be a decent route. Most CL work that isn't >> specific to one of the proprietary systems (Allegro, LispWorks, &c.) is >> written with SBCL or, to a lesser extent, CCL. If anyone's interested in >> working on a CL port to plan9, I'll start a lisp cabal, that can work on >> other systems next. >> >> I'll look today... > [previous message and grotesque signature snipped] > > One challenge with SBCL and some other implementations is that you > need a Common Lisp system already in place to compile them. I looked > into Clisp, which can be compiled with a C compiler, but after > fighting configure for a while I quit. >
Last time I looked into this, I was comparing different version of a common lisp systems to see which one might be easy enough to port during the weekend. I remember I dropped to at least 3 1. gcl-1.0 2. ecl-8.12 3. clisp -- I guess I can remove this from my list fernan -- http://www.fernski.com
