Re: Lisp as a procedural language?

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> 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).
>
>

We're almost certain not to be including a Lisp PL in the core
distribution, so the license shouldn't be an issue (c.f. PL/R)

cheers

andrew