Exolon wrote:I decided to jump in and play with the libraries available in the CL community (i.e. ASDF-installable) to try to stop my procrastination in using CL. So I upgraded to the latest SBCL build for OS X and started looking for GUI libraries; something I personally expect from a programming language/setup before I feel it's practically usable, even though I don't write much GUI software.
Exolon wrote:Doing so was a bit of a nightmare, at least as a Lisp-newbie. It took maybe 4 hours of effort spread over two days before I found one that would nearly build (lispbuilder-sdl) and was able to coax into working with a couple of hacks. Right after that I tried to asdf-install lispbuilder-sdl-ttf (for playing with fonts) and had to modify its Makefile for OS X and specify a library location in absolute terms.
Before those, I tried and failed to install quite a few libraries - cells, cello, mcclim, poly-pen and a few others.
Exolon wrote:The ones that didn't turn up a 404 or other basic error with asdf-install required hacking to get them to build, so not one of them worked out of the box. This is pretty discouraging - how do you distribute programs when the users would have to modify Makefiles and asd files etc just to even get your code to build?
Exolon wrote:Am I just unlucky, and some servers are down (a lot of stuff on cliki gave 404s via asdf-install, and the web-cvs interfaces on common-lisp.net are broken), or is this just a result of half-baked libraries/installation scripts (understandable since not many package maintainers have Macs),
Exolon wrote: or is there something more fundamentally wrong with CL?
JamesF wrote:I disagree with anta40; it's not because it's a spec with multiple implementations, it's just that either people haven't gotten around to writing some of the libraries that are taken for granted in other language, or they've been written (probably several times) and not shared.
JamesF wrote:The other part of this problem is that it's hard work to write a polished library - nobody wants to share (or use) a library that's half-written and undocumented, and the motivation for maintaining it generally goes away when the job is complete.
anta40 wrote:I think this nature is due to CL is "a specification", not "an implementation".
anta40 wrote:I just recently learn CL. And I think I can describe the situation like this :
this library works on this CL on this OS, and that library works on that CL on that OS.
So if i want to write multiplatform code, then I need to write some kind of wrapper, which at the moment i'm not capable of.
anta40 wrote:Probably the (temporal) solution would be stick to one OS for a moment and forget the multiplatform issue for a while.
dmitry_vk wrote:But other libraries worked quite fine (maybe because I used Gentoo Linux's package repository, in which lisp-overlay is quite well maintained).
JamesF wrote:The library situation is being increasingly acknowledged as somewhere between "painful" and "abysmal." People like Edi Weitz have made fantastic contributions, but there are still some significant barriers to entry for all but the determined.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests