On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM, LiteStar numnums<lites...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, lisp != common lisp aside, I wouldn't mind a native CL system. I > haven't looked at the SBCL backend in quite sometime, but, assuming it's not > terribly insane, that would be a decent route. Most CL work that isn't > specific to one of the proprietary systems (Allegro, LispWorks, &c.) is > written with SBCL or, to a lesser extent, CCL. If anyone's interested in > working on a CL port to plan9, I'll start a lisp cabal, that can work on > other systems next. > > I'll look today... [previous message and grotesque signature snipped]
One challenge with SBCL and some other implementations is that you need a Common Lisp system already in place to compile them. I looked into Clisp, which can be compiled with a C compiler, but after fighting configure for a while I quit. John -- "Object-oriented design is the roman numerals of computing" -- Rob Pike
