Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

LISP compilation

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 15:53

I'm learning common LISP, and I wrote a simple program and interpreted it with clisp, worked, compiled it, worked, but i want an .exe, it just seems more official, and i don't want to go and get a commercial LISP implimentation, so how could I compile LISP code into a .exe with clisp?
i tried http://www.frank-buss.de/lisp/clisp.html and it didn't work, when i tried just "lisp" as the command, it told me i didn't have libreadline6.dll and when i tried clisp, it said the "lispinit.mem" wasn't created by clisp

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 21:38

>>11
Duh, that's because you're retarded.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 23:17

>>12
Duh, that's because you're retarded.

For some reason, this made me laugh real hard.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 23:47

>>13
For some reason, this gave me a hard-on.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 0:39

>>3
>>4
>>5
wtf is wrong with LISP?

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 0:40

>>15
Optimize your quotes and I might reply.

Name: VIPPER 2010-10-04 6:35

NEWS

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 11:33

Pretty much all implementations I've used support either compiling to executable/module or just dumping the memory image which can be used directly.

SBCL, ClozureCL, AllegroCL, LispWorks - native compilation, memory image (all data and code objects)
ECL - compile to C, which is natively compiled - your executables look the same as the usual C-compiled programs, tinier, but less fancy/real than memory image CLs.
There was also a fork of CLISP for generating bytecode and CLISP itself can be used to do that, but I've never deployed anything with GNU CLISP.

I prefer to develop everything in SBCL or CCL and deploy in SBCL, CCL or ECL. Switching implementations is very easy when using SLIME, but if you hate Emacs, you should try the commercial implementations, they're fine too.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List