Re: Lisp as a procedural language?

On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 20:43 -0400, Nikolas Everett wrote:
> From what I remember with tinkering with Lisp a while back, SBCL and
> CMUCL are the big free implementations. I remember something about
> GCL being non-standard. Either of those should make lisp hackers
> happy.

GCL (and Clisp) are both reasonable implementations of Common Lisp.
However, they are both GPL, which I think is an issue for PostgreSQL
community members. CMUCL development more or less stalled out, and many
of the heavyweights moved to Steel Bank Common Lisp (SBCL). It's kind of
a joke -- Carnegie => Steel, Mellon => Bank, so Carnegie Mellon
(University) Common Lisp => Steel Bank Common Lisp. :)

In any event, SBCL is MIT-licensed, which is free of some of the more
"annoying" GPL restrictions. BTW, I checked on XLispStat and it seems to
be frozen in time -- most of the people who used to use XLispStat
(including me) have moved on to R (which is GPL, unfortunately).
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
ruby-perspectives.blogspot.com

"A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems." --
Alfréd Rényi via Paul Erdős