Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!spice.cs.cmu.edu!af From: af@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Alessandro Forin) Newsgroups: comp.os.mach Subject: Re: Two MACH questions (the second one) Summary: Lisp on Mach Message-ID: <7548@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Date: 12 Jan 90 17:08:21 GMT References: <35878@cornell.UUCP> Distribution: comp Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 35 In article <35878@cornell.UUCP>, ken@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Ken Birman) writes: > > 2) Could someone summarize the availability of Common LISP systems under > MACH? At Cornell, people have been using Lucid and Allegro common > lisp, with recent interest in Harlequin because it apparently comes > closer to the symbolics environment. Whats the picture under MACH? > Without a widely acceptable LISP, Cornell will resist switching to > MACH, needless to say... > So would CMU, my dear :-)) All Lisps that I know of that run on U*x-BSD run on Mach unmodified. [Of course, since we are binary comaptible] This is especially true for Lucid and Franz on the boxes where they run, here we use them mostly on Suns, Vaxen and Pmaxen. I believe Franz has a Lisp for the NeXT box, but I haven't used it. CMU Common Lisp runs exclusively on IBM-RTs (for now) and provides an environment even nicer than a symbolics (opinions..), for instance you can run compile servers in parallel on remote machines (yes, from within the Hemlock editor). KCL runs, of course, I made it run on the Pmax when Allegro was not available. There are also a wealth of Schemes, included Dave Kranz' T for the Pmax. And Multilisp (I ported it to lots of Mach boxes) and Mul-T (Encore-Mach, Dave Kranz with some help from myself). And we have a variety of internal ``smaller'' lisps, like the very cute Oaklisp one. I don't know about Harlequin (when we tested it was a little rough, and people preferred Franz), but you can bet it would run just fine. Gee, I hope it's enough. sandro- PS: Apologies in advance for any accidental omission, feel free to post about it.