There are plenty of tools for Common Lisp; what do you need? Some tools from other languages aren't applicable to Lisp because lisp provides the features built-in, and other tools provide the same functionality under different names, and the cultural difference in jagon may make mapping a familiar tool to a Lisp tool difficult.
There are plenty of testing tools and more than one system construction tool; poke around cliki a bit to find tools in general.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=47kp4j52c.fsf%40beta.franz.com has a bit of info about why there aren't any lisps for .net yet, although I've heard that .net is evolving to make supporting a lisp-like language better.
I'm interested in stuff like XUnit (found a similar utility at http://www.xprogramming.com/software.html), ant, DocGen or Oxygen, an IDE that supports refactoring, etc. The same kinds of tools that exist for the Java Open Source community; stuff I'm used to.
However, as I said, these kinds of tools may not be the Lisp Way. Lisp-parsing-Lisp and Macros may be more consistent with Lisp philosophy.
The reference on why there's no .NET Lisp was helpful. However, it cost me about 45 minutes from poking around c.l.l... ;-)
However, I'll be needing to jump on this development effort in the next six weeks or so. I wouldn't be up-to-speed on a Lisp.NET by then even if one existed. That's why I'm pondering Visual Python. It's a higher-level language than C#, will be more productive than C#, and I already know Python.
Thanks again for the continuing interest in ProgBlog
I know it's considered poor form to respond to one's own comments, but...
I forgot to mention that I kicked off a quick note to Duane Rettig, the author of the article you (Zack) referenced, asking about the current state of Zranz' plans to implement a .NET Lisp.
There are many unit testing systems; see http://www.cliki.net/Test%20Framework
There are a few different tools to construct systems from a collection of source files; the one I most commonly use is ASDF.
I haven't used any documentation generation systems.
I use Emacs plus SLIME as an IDE. It does not support refactoring, but it does present a decent unified interface to the debugger, repl, and xref facilities of the lisp underneath.
You'll get a lot of this stuff as a package deal from a commercial Lisp vendor.
Certain Lisp tools don't have feature parity with Java tools, and I think it's because of a lack of development resources. It'd be great if SLIME had support for refactoring, but I don't think it's anyone's top priority right now.
First: Zack, thanks again for the feedback. I'll be checking out CLiki to look for tools. I've downloaded the Franz Lisp demo, tho' haven't been able to use it much yet.
As for the query to Duane about a .NET Lisp, here's his response:
We are researching it. I am not a part of that research, and I am getting ready for vacation (you just caught me before going out the door), so you might want to broaden your query to either sales@franz.com or support@franz.com. If you have our product, you can also ask your account representative directly.
DuaneI'll hit up Franz for an answer and share here later.
19:02
Comment deleted
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
10:15
You know, a few weeks ago, I was hot-to-trot about learning Lisp. Sadly, two weeks of traveling for work has taken a bit of the fervor our my plans.
Recent events at work now leave me with a strong sense that I need to learn .NET: ASP.NET, .NET Web Forms, .NET Windows Forms, etc., etc., etc.... Lisp Learning may have to take a backseat.
I'm also pondering the relative merits of Visual Python (a .NET version of Python) versus C#.NET (I'm fluent in VB, and could easily transition to VB.Net, but I've always preferred the C/Java/C# style of languages over VB).
I know Python will be more productive than C#, but will it's loose-typing and late binding be up to the task of building a high-quality, commerical, end-user application that leverages MS' product automation (e.g., linking together a number of apps through automation)?
Naturally, I wondered whether there's a .NET implementation of Lisp. There is. Sort of. There's a project at Northwestern University that is an implementation of Scheme that targets .NET. It hasn't been updated since 2002, though. And it's current version is 0.5 -- in alpha status at SourceForge. We won't be building out mousetrap in Lisp.NET.
Plus, the tools for Lisp, like XUnit (look for Common Lisp), ant, etc., don't seem to exist for Lisp.
Of course, it could be that the Lisp Way isn't conducive to creating tools like in other languages. Using Macros and "reflection" by parsing Lisp code directly is probably the Lisp Way.
We shall see....
At any rate, it looks like there's no real .NET implementation of Lisp. Too bad, too. That would have been fun.
6 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formThere are plenty of tools for Common Lisp; what do you need? Some tools from other languages aren't applicable to Lisp because lisp provides the features built-in, and other tools provide the same functionality under different names, and the cultural difference in jagon may make mapping a familiar tool to a Lisp tool difficult.
There are plenty of testing tools and more than one system construction tool; poke around cliki a bit to find tools in general.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=47kp4j52c.fsf%40beta.franz.com has a bit of info about why there aren't any lisps for .net yet, although I've heard that .net is evolving to make supporting a lisp-like language better.
08:09
Hi, Zach,
Thanks for the continuing assistance.
I'm interested in stuff like XUnit (found a similar utility at http://www.xprogramming.com/software.html), ant, DocGen or Oxygen, an IDE that supports refactoring, etc. The same kinds of tools that exist for the Java Open Source community; stuff I'm used to.
However, as I said, these kinds of tools may not be the Lisp Way. Lisp-parsing-Lisp and Macros may be more consistent with Lisp philosophy.
The reference on why there's no .NET Lisp was helpful. However, it cost me about 45 minutes from poking around c.l.l... ;-)
However, I'll be needing to jump on this development effort in the next six weeks or so. I wouldn't be up-to-speed on a Lisp.NET by then even if one existed. That's why I'm pondering Visual Python. It's a higher-level language than C#, will be more productive than C#, and I already know Python.
Thanks again for the continuing interest in ProgBlog
09:04
I know it's considered poor form to respond to one's own comments, but...
I forgot to mention that I kicked off a quick note to Duane Rettig, the author of the article you (Zack) referenced, asking about the current state of Zranz' plans to implement a .NET Lisp.
I'll post the result here when it comes back.
09:07
There are many unit testing systems; see http://www.cliki.net/Test%20Framework
There are a few different tools to construct systems from a collection of source files; the one I most commonly use is ASDF.
I haven't used any documentation generation systems.
I use Emacs plus SLIME as an IDE. It does not support refactoring, but it does present a decent unified interface to the debugger, repl, and xref facilities of the lisp underneath.
You'll get a lot of this stuff as a package deal from a commercial Lisp vendor.
Certain Lisp tools don't have feature parity with Java tools, and I think it's because of a lack of development resources. It'd be great if SLIME had support for refactoring, but I don't think it's anyone's top priority right now.
The more hackers, the merrier!
09:31
First: Zack, thanks again for the feedback. I'll be checking out CLiki to look for tools. I've downloaded the Franz Lisp demo, tho' haven't been able to use it much yet.
As for the query to Duane about a .NET Lisp, here's his response:
We are researching it. I am not a part of that research, and I am getting ready for vacation (you just caught me before going out the door), so you might want to broaden your query to either sales@franz.com or support@franz.com. If you have our product, you can also ask your account representative directly.
DuaneI'll hit up Franz for an answer and share here later.
19:02
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
10:15