00:57:13 -!- alms [n=alms@209-150-48-250.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [] 01:36:48 alms [n=alms@209-150-48-250.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #ccl 01:53:49 -!- alms [n=alms@209-150-48-250.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [] 02:20:27 -!- bfulgham_ [n=brent@adsl-69-234-119-192.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net] has quit [] 02:48:22 jauaor [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #ccl 03:21:49 alms [n=alms@209-150-48-250.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #ccl 05:20:47 -!- segv [n=mb@p4FC1E5F9.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 05:22:24 segv [n=mb@p4FC1DA39.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #ccl 05:27:17 bfulgham_ [n=brent@adsl-69-234-119-192.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net] has joined #ccl 05:34:34 -!- xristos [n=x@dns.suspicious.org] has quit [Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)] 06:49:56 -!- jauaor [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has left #ccl 08:24:24 -!- bfulgham_ [n=brent@adsl-69-234-119-192.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net] has quit [] 08:50:46 jauaor [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #ccl 09:13:20 H4ns [n=Hans@p57BB93F1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #ccl 12:31:48 lisppaste5 [n=lisppast@common-lisp.net] has joined #ccl 12:48:51 H4ns1 [n=Hans@p57BBA077.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #ccl 12:53:19 -!- H4ns [n=Hans@p57BB93F1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Nick collision from services.] 12:53:21 -!- H4ns1 is now known as H4ns 13:06:05 -!- jauaor [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has left #ccl 13:14:51 -!- alms [n=alms@209-150-48-250.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [] 13:51:05 jajcloz [n=jaj@209.6.216.149] has joined #ccl 14:12:26 jajcloz_ [n=jaj@209.6.216.149] has joined #ccl 14:12:41 -!- jajcloz [n=jaj@209.6.216.149] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 14:20:24 -!- sellout [n=greg@c-24-128-50-176.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [] 14:25:17 alms [n=alms@209-150-48-250.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #ccl 14:28:35 anRch [n=markmill@nmd.sbx07283.medfoma.wayport.net] has joined #ccl 15:08:37 sellout [n=greg@guest-fw.dc4.itasoftware.com] has joined #ccl 15:20:00 -!- jajcloz_ [n=jaj@209.6.216.149] has quit [] 15:20:55 jajcloz [n=jaj@209.6.216.149] has joined #ccl 15:24:11 So when's win32 CCL coming out? 15:25:48 It's out. 15:26:15 Or, at least, it is peeking around the corner. 15:26:45 I use it on a daily basis. It's pretty complete. 15:30:40 anRch_ [n=markmill@nmd.sbx07283.medfoma.wayport.net] has joined #ccl 15:31:40 -!- anRch [n=markmill@nmd.sbx07283.medfoma.wayport.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 16:04:21 jajcloz: Win32 CCL multithreaded? 16:04:49 yep full native threads 16:05:49 Nice - I'm planning eventual transition away from Lispworks; but need it for win32. Is there a good post that (not from a pi**ing match standpoint; but just in general) describes the effective CCL/SBCL differences? 16:06:58 I'm not aware of anything like that, but it must be around 16:09:45 -!- sellout [n=greg@guest-fw.dc4.itasoftware.com] has left #ccl 16:09:57 sellout [n=greg@guest-fw.dc4.itasoftware.com] has joined #ccl 16:09:58 -!- sellout [n=greg@guest-fw.dc4.itasoftware.com] has left #ccl 16:10:17 sellout [n=greg@guest-fw.dc4.itasoftware.com] has joined #ccl 16:10:47 The best I can think of is Dan's Lisp survey, but it's already somewhat out of date for CCL: http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html 16:12:36 Fracture of Lisp is obnoxious; but I really want one that will work on Win32/64 as well as linux (noncommercial) 16:22:50 -!- anRch_ [n=markmill@nmd.sbx07283.medfoma.wayport.net] has quit [] 16:55:51 -!- Modius [n=Modius@adsl-68-93-132-132.dsl.austtx.swbell.net] has quit ["I'm big in Japan"] 16:56:06 Modius [n=Modius@adsl-68-93-132-132.dsl.austtx.swbell.net] has joined #ccl 17:13:17 Modius: personally i think it's a good thing (but i agree it's a pain for newbies). 17:13:47 the 'competition' between the various lisps means that whatever situation you find yourslef in you'll find a lisp suited to your needs. 17:13:59 and i don't think this would be the case if there was One True Lisp. 17:14:00 Unless that situation is Win32 :P 17:14:08 allegro, lispworks, clisp 17:14:55 I use lispworks; but there isn't a free turnkey with multithreading (clisp can't scale into a web server because of this) 17:15:22 I dispute the idea that multithreading is required for a scaleable web server. 17:15:28 and you think there would be one if there was only one lisp? 17:15:49 (and i use clisp behind a mod_lisp apache in a multi threaded situation just fine) 17:15:55 It certainly makes it appear easier to write one, but it takes a lot of effort to make a threaded server beat a select() loop. 17:15:56 No; but it gives python a bit of a head start that windows users (yes, we su**; but there are a lot of us) can get in easily 17:16:02 (well, i have done that in the past, i do not now do that) 17:17:00 well, i guess it's debatable, but i don't think there'd be a win32 lisp even if there was only one implementation (there just aren't enough lisp programmers on windows who can't buy lispworks). 17:17:25 I just want to say up front, I'm not trying to engage in language trolling here although the conversation I'm starting may sound otherwise. Free, multithreaded, multiplatform (including win32) will be a great boon, and I look forward to when we have 2 (SBCL one day, and it sounds like CCL a tad sooner) 17:17:59 it'd be really really nice, and ccl is almost there, but all i want to say (and really, this is all i want to say) is that the fragmentation of lisp resources is not the reason we don't have a win32 lisp. 17:18:11 yeah, i know you're not trolling. 17:18:17 People who are curious to play with languages (like I was) are more inspired to invest (time) in one if augmented by the illusion that the platform would scale into production 17:18:36 who runs web servers on windows? 17:18:40 I'm annoyed with lispworks as it cannot be used for multicore experimentation (good otherwise) 17:18:55 All of us microsoft enterprise monkeys 17:19:04 ouch, that hurts. 17:19:13 you have my most prfound sympathy. 17:19:26 It generally feels like we're the majority :) 17:19:36 The 2 worlds are very segregated. But win/linux cross tools gives a pathway out 17:19:41 not in the server world... 17:20:09 May vary by industry - I see the MS servery thing growing, and (again, segregated worlds) I hear little of anything else. 17:20:50 SOA/web apps mean "alternative" languages can coexist on the same servers. And if those servers all end up running linux-cross tools exclusively then there is a pathway off windows 17:21:36 I'd rather establish the path off Windows by quarantining it into a VM :-) 17:22:13 I'm not a zealot pro or anti-windows; but see optimal tools (like language tools) that are cross-platforms would make the decision a continuum rather than MS or not (and enterprise chases mediocrity, and the mediocres are being drawn to the next generation of MS managerware program-by-gui tools) 17:22:52 Lisp guys see win32/cross support as nothing - I see it as everything 17:23:20 I don't think that's quite true. It's just that Win32 is really strange in many ways, whereas the strangeness of Unix is more familiar. 17:23:46 chandler: Eye of the beholder/background - to people who've lived in windows world Unix is less familiar 17:23:53 Right. That was my point :-) 17:24:23 But I do assert that Windows pathnames (which cause an awful lot of trouble for cross-platform apps) are exceptionally strange by any standard. 17:24:41 Fair enough 17:25:35 That's about the only fundamental issue, really. Everything else is just a small matter of programming. Clozure obviously has the motivation to do that work. 17:25:51 SBCL, eh... 17:28:30 I've waited for SBCL to get threading for 2 years - looks like CCL is closer is why I'm excited (note, not trying to start pi**ing match over priorities or rubbish them, just stating my interest) 17:28:38 I mean win32/threading that is 17:29:32 Waiting for SBCL to get anything is probably futile. Unlike CCL, there's no real commercial support. ITA pays some of the SBCL hackers, but to do ITA stuff for the most part. 17:29:59 So, basically stuff happens in random assorted people's free time. 17:31:07 I've been a tad dismayed after seeing the insane efforts put into GHC (gc etc), would love a CL based high-support experimental testbed 17:33:02 well, Haskell was created to be a research problem (at least that's the only obvious explanation that occurs to me), so it's no surprise to see lots of effort being soaked up by that 17:35:04 I kind of went off on another tangent I guess - I just know Lispworks can't go multi-cpu without major rethink. Another tangent, dunno how I feel about their commercial prospects, I like having them be around; but an ideal freeware situation would sink them, and they probably have that handing over their head like sword of damocles. 17:36:16 I really can't speculate on LispWorks' business prospects. There are things I think it would be obvious for them to do (replacing Motif with GTK+ in the Linux version, for starters), but they don't seem to have much interest. 17:39:40 jaycloz: Can ccl create Win32 executables? 17:59:47 milanj [n=milan@212.200.223.120] has joined #ccl 18:02:07 -!- Modius [n=Modius@adsl-68-93-132-132.dsl.austtx.swbell.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 18:02:27 Modius [n=Modius@adsl-68-93-132-132.dsl.austtx.swbell.net] has joined #ccl 18:04:24 Modius: yes. 18:05:02 E.g. the ccl executable is created by ccl. 18:05:09 -!- Modius [n=Modius@adsl-68-93-132-132.dsl.austtx.swbell.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 18:05:33 Modius [n=Modius@adsl-68-93-132-132.dsl.austtx.swbell.net] has joined #ccl 18:06:04 -!- Modius [n=Modius@adsl-68-93-132-132.dsl.austtx.swbell.net] has quit [Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer)] 18:06:25 Modius [n=Modius@adsl-68-93-132-132.dsl.austtx.swbell.net] has joined #ccl 18:38:31 Modius_ [n=Modius@adsl-68-93-132-132.dsl.austtx.swbell.net] has joined #ccl 18:39:40 milanj- [n=milan@79.101.170.205] has joined #ccl 18:48:31 milan [n=milan@93.86.58.106] has joined #ccl 18:49:00 -!- Modius [n=Modius@adsl-68-93-132-132.dsl.austtx.swbell.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 18:55:30 -!- milanj [n=milan@212.200.223.120] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 18:55:47 -!- Modius_ is now known as Modius 18:56:37 Is CCL multicore on Win64? I ask as I've fired up 3 threads on Vista 64 on a quad; but it's only hovering on 25% cpu. It's doing incf/push into pairs of special variables (building up lists of nils) 18:59:03 BTW - fwiw my thread code is compiled - (compile nil (lambda () . . . . 18:59:33 (process-run-function "test3" (compile nil (lambda () (loop for i from 1 to 40 18:59:33 00000000 do (progn (incf f) (push nil e)))))) 19:05:25 -!- milanj- [n=milan@79.101.170.205] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 19:14:52 Modius: I think gc stops the world, so if you're doing something that causes a lot of gc, it might not show off multicore well. Just a guess. It's also possible it's a real bug. 19:18:29 gz: Aah yes you were right - either my use of special variables or allocation was the culprit - shame on me for trying to test threads + insane allocation at the same time. Computation example put in place, all CPUs maxed. . . . . 19:19:54 rme [n=rme@pool-70-105-117-95.chi.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #ccl 19:57:57 jauaor [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #ccl 20:32:57 milanj- [n=milan@77.46.187.22] has joined #ccl 20:41:11 -!- milan [n=milan@93.86.58.106] has quit [Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)] 22:07:22 -!- alms [n=alms@209-150-48-250.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [] 22:14:59 anRch [n=markmill@nmd.sbx07258.melroma.wayport.net] has joined #ccl 23:03:08 -!- sellout [n=greg@guest-fw.dc4.itasoftware.com] has quit [] 23:12:36 alms [n=alms@209-150-48-250.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #ccl 23:15:29 -!- alms [n=alms@209-150-48-250.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Client Quit] 23:22:10 -!- anRch [n=markmill@nmd.sbx07258.melroma.wayport.net] has quit [] 23:49:14 sellout [n=greg@c-24-128-50-176.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #ccl 23:57:54 alms [n=alms@209-150-48-250.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #ccl 23:58:08 -!- alms [n=alms@209-150-48-250.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Client Quit]