Re: Windows x64 PicoLisp preview

2016-08-17 Thread andreas
Thanks for your tests and this breakdown compilation of the current state. This should be a page in the wiki. - Original Message - From: Joe Bogner [mailto:joebog...@gmail.com] To: picolisp@software-lab.de Sent: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:02:50 -0400 Subject: Re: Windows x64 PicoLisp preview

Re: Windows x64 PicoLisp preview

2016-08-17 Thread Joe Bogner
Thanks for the feedback everyone. I resurveyed the options on Windows this morning for PicoLisp 1. pil32 compiled under mingw -- compiles but doesn't work due to issues with reading from stdin -- example (load "lib.l") is read as (load "lib.") .. similar failures when invoking from command line 2

Re: Windows x64 PicoLisp preview

2016-08-17 Thread andreas
Great work Joe! As rick said, this will make windows work more bearable and open up opportunities to deploy picolisp, especially for little scripts and glue work. Many thanks to you, Alex, rick and the awesome guys from midipix :-)

Re: Windows x64 PicoLisp preview

2016-08-17 Thread rick
Hi Joe! Thank you for doing this and nice writeup! I will heed your caveats and use it at work. At first for simple things, and then ramp-up the capabilities related to forking and native calls when they come on-line. This is very exciting, especially for someone like me who is literally stuck

Re: Windows x64 PicoLisp preview

2016-08-17 Thread Jakob Eriksson
This is really good, thank you. On 17/08/16 14:13, Joe Bogner wrote: > I've been working on a port of PicoLisp 64 to Windows. The port is ready > for an early preview for anyone who wants to try it out > > The goal of the initiative is to allow PicoLisp development on Windows. > This may impro

Windows x64 PicoLisp preview

2016-08-17 Thread Joe Bogner
I've been working on a port of PicoLisp 64 to Windows. The port is ready for an early preview for anyone who wants to try it out The goal of the initiative is to allow PicoLisp development on Windows. This may improve efficiency and usage of resources as virtual boxes or remote shells aren't neces