-3

Is there a Plug-and-play Common Lisp/Scheme implementation?

By Plug-and-play I mean an implementation with an IDE that doesn't require you to play chords with a pianist dexterity(so not Emacs), where you can run a program by pressing a button not writing commands in a console, with modern libraries and that is portable.

Racket supports all the features above EXCEPT portability. I wrote a program in Racket that I couldn't send to friends because it wouldn't run on other computers. I want to make programs that I can send as easily as a Java programmer sends a Jar file and you can run it with double-click.

I also don't like how Clojure looks.

So the big question: if someone doesn't know programming, can he learn LISP using this implementation as easy as someone who would pick Java or C#?

Theodor Berza
  • 573
  • 3
  • 12
  • Clojure is your best option. What is it that you dislike about it? – jkiiski Jan 29 '16 at 10:30
  • 3
    Why couldn't the Racket program run on other computers? – coredump Jan 29 '16 at 10:35
  • 1
    @coredump Apparently the library for rsound wasn't mature enough. The path for the DLL was hardcoded, it still doesn't work after the update. at:jkiiski The syntax is too rich and reminds me of Java. I try to move away from the Java nightmare. – Theodor Berza Jan 29 '16 at 10:42
  • 1
    If Clojure and Racket are ruled out, your options are pretty limited. Not having mature libraries available for everything is a common thing with all Lisps. Remember that no Lisp has as large userbase or big companies backing them as Java/C# has. Doing something uncommon will likely require using FFI. Free Lisp implementations don't usually have their own IDEs (probably because Emacs is so good after you get over the learning curve). – jkiiski Jan 29 '16 at 11:04
  • Then I'll stick to Racket. It is going to be hard thow. – Theodor Berza Jan 29 '16 at 11:06
  • 2
    Hmm... I'm not sure this will make any difference, but if I understand correctly, pretty much *all* of the problems you've had with Racket have had to do with my `rsound` library. So... I apologize? – John Clements Jan 30 '16 at 18:46
  • 1
    @JohnClements Not at all, only that the program can't be installed on other people's computer. – Theodor Berza Jan 31 '16 at 15:24

3 Answers3

3

I think you are mixing a lot of different requirements in your description:

If you need something that compiles to a binary executable file, you can use a bunch of CL implementations that compiles to an executable file. You can even use https://common-lisp.net/project/armedbear/ that runs on JVM.

If you need something easy to start with, with editor and runtime embedded, you can use http://www.lispworks.com or things like https://common-lisp.net/project/lispbox/.

But it seems that you are also talking about the language. Well, the syntax is only one part of the language, don't evaluate a language just taking into account its syntax.

Finally, I don't believe that it is easy to start working with Java or C#. You may think that these IDEs make life easier, but in the reality, it takes time to install them, solve dependencies and really learn how to be productive with them. Those IDEs end-up being much less flexible and usable than Emacs that you criticized. I have some experience teaching CL for students that after 1-2 months quickly started to be very productively why Emacs.

Alexandre Rademaker
  • 2,683
  • 2
  • 19
  • 21
0

Well I think that this days is pretty easy to install common lisp and intall slime with quiclisp then you can have your environment quick and easy

take a look at this question

Setting the SLIME in emacs

and in quicklisp:

https://www.quicklisp.org/beta/#installation

also I recommend you to take a look at the roswell an intend to be a lisp installer and launcher for major environment that just work.

project on github in the wiki section they have an easy form of start emacs with roswell:

https://github.com/roswell/roswell/wiki

Community
  • 1
  • 1
anquegi
  • 11,125
  • 4
  • 51
  • 67
0

require you to play chords with a pianist dexterity(so not Emacs)

One can use emacs like notepad and use menus and buttons to do actions instead of key combinations, that although arbitrary, don't require much dexterity to reach. It is clear to someone that have used SLIME that you SLIME satisfies your requirements but are deadset against emacs. If so, give Allegro Common Lisp a try.

Racket supports all the features above EXCEPT portability. I wrote a program in Racket that I couldn't send to friends because it wouldn't run on other computers. I want to make programs that I can send as easily as a Java programmer sends a Jar file and you can run it with double-click.

In racket you can use raco exe will produce a Stand alone executable, so Racket will also do.

PuercoPop
  • 6,707
  • 4
  • 30
  • 40