On Oct 20, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Joshua Tolley wrote:
One of the Java-as-a-procedural-language options uses RMI to get the
server talking to a separate JVM, where the actual function processing
gets done. Could a PL/Lisp work similarly (and would it be anything
approaching a good idea...)?
I thin
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:56 PM, John DeSoi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 19, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Douglas McNaught wrote:
>
>> SBCL is a big and very sophisticated program. It's designed to be a
>> self-contained Lisp system and has (AFAIK) no concessions to
>> "embeddability". It uses thr
On Oct 19, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Douglas McNaught wrote:
SBCL is a big and very sophisticated program. It's designed to be a
self-contained Lisp system and has (AFAIK) no concessions to
"embeddability". It uses threads internally, and plays games with the
memory map to make GC more efficient. On
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 09:24 +0300, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
> "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Someone at the PostgreSQL West conference last weekend expressed an
> > interest in a Lisp procedural language. The only two Lisp environments
> > I've found so far that aren't GPL are
2008/10/18 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> GCL (and Clisp) are both reasonable implementations of Common Lisp.
> However, they are both GPL, which I think is an issue for PostgreSQL
> community members. CMUCL development more or less stalled out, and many
> of the heavyweights moved
"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Someone at the PostgreSQL West conference last weekend expressed an
> interest in a Lisp procedural language. The only two Lisp environments
> I've found so far that aren't GPL are Steel Bank Common Lisp (MIT,
> http://sbcl.sourceforge.net) and
"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GCL (and Clisp) are both reasonable implementations of Common Lisp.
> However, they are both GPL, which I think is an issue for PostgreSQL
> community members.
Well, it would be an issue if we wanted to distribute PL/Lisp as part of
the core;
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 20:43 -0400, Nikolas Everett wrote:
From what I remember with tinkering with Lisp a while back, SBCL and
CMUCL are the big free implementations. I remember something about
GCL being non-standard. Either of those should make lisp hackers
On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 20:43 -0400, Nikolas Everett wrote:
> From what I remember with tinkering with Lisp a while back, SBCL and
> CMUCL are the big free implementations. I remember something about
> GCL being non-standard. Either of those should make lisp hackers
> happy.
GCL (and Clisp) are bo
From what I remember with tinkering with Lisp a while back, SBCL and CMUCL
are the big free implementations. I remember something about GCL being
non-standard. Either of those should make lisp hackers happy.
2008/10/18 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Someone at the PostgreSQL West
Someone at the PostgreSQL West conference last weekend expressed an
interest in a Lisp procedural language. The only two Lisp environments
I've found so far that aren't GPL are Steel Bank Common Lisp (MIT,
http://sbcl.sourceforge.net) and XLispStat (BSD,
http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~luke/xls/xlsinfo/
11 matches
Mail list logo
