Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!adelbert6.Stanford.EDU!foo From: foo@adelbert6.Stanford.EDU (castor fu) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Common lisps Message-ID: Date: 6 Jun 91 16:31:03 GMT Article-I.D.: adelbert.foo.676225863 Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News) Distribution: usa Organization: AIR, Stanford University Lines: 15 Our system administrators announced recently that they were going to begin withdrawing support for ibuki common lisp (because of costs), and advocated using lucid common lisp which they would support. This made me wonder what the relative advantages of the different brands of common lisp available for workstations are. What makes Ibuki preferable to Lucid, (both products), compared to Kyoto CL, which is free? Is it a major question of support availability? Are the main differences in programming environment, or efficiency? Thanks, Castor Fu castor@embezzle.stanford.edu p.s. I don't know anything about lisp, but figured that if I ever wanted to, I wanted to know which systems were preferable.