Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!uc!shamash!timbuk!dkozak
From: dkozak@mahogany29.cray.com (Darryn Kozak)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Common lisps
Message-ID: <154422.6750@timbuk.cray.com>
Date: 6 Jun 91 21:28:43 GMT
References: <foo.676225863@adelbert6.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: dkozak@mahogany29 (Darryn Kozak)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Lines: 50



In article <foo.676225863@adelbert6.Stanford.EDU>, foo@adelbert6.Stanford.EDU (castor fu) writes:
> 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.
> 

Some of the attributes to be considered might be:

	windowing support
	portability
	platforms available 
	customer support (quality/cost/methods)
	method of garbage collection
	interprocess communication support
	debug and trace facilities
	foreign function interface
	advice facility 
	cost
	image dumping/size of images
	


	Darryn J Kozak

	Cray Research Park
	655F Lone Oak Drive
	Eagan, MN  55121

	dkozak@cray.com

	(612) 683-5244

	ISS (Integrated Support System) Project