Re: [HACKERS] Lisp as a procedural language?
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 Steel Bank Common Lisp (MIT, > > http://sbcl.sourceforge.net) and XLispStat (BSD, > > http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~luke/xls/xlsinfo/xlsinfo.html). SBCL is a > > very active project, but I'm not sure about XLispStat. > > You see PL/scheme[1]? I don't remember who it was at the conference, but when I suggested Scheme, he said that it already existed, and that (Common) Lisp was really what was wanted. Scheme is a much simpler beast. Both Scheme and Common Lisp are similar in complexity at the core/"virtual machine"/interpreter/compiler level. But once you load on all the libraries, object models (CLOS), etc., Common Lisp is much bigger. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky ruby-perspectives.blogspot.com "A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems." -- Alfréd Rényi via Paul Erdős -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Lisp as a procedural language?
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 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 to Steel Bank Common Lisp (SBCL). It's kind of a joke -- Carnegie => Steel, Mellon => Bank, so Carnegie Mellon (University) Common Lisp => Steel Bank Common Lisp. :) In any event, SBCL is MIT-licensed, which is free of some of the more "annoying" GPL restrictions. BTW, I checked on XLispStat and it seems to be frozen in time -- most of the people who used to use XLispStat (including me) have moved on to R (which is GPL, unfortunately). -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky ruby-perspectives.blogspot.com "A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems." -- Alfréd Rényi via Paul Erdős -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Lisp as a procedural language?
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/xlsinfo.html). SBCL is a very active project, but I'm not sure about XLispStat. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky ruby-perspectives.blogspot.com "A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems." -- Alfréd Rényi via Paul Erdős -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
