From: Bruno H. <ha...@il...> - 2000-04-04 12:36:05
|
Approximate download numbers from the binaries directory on clisp.cons.org since the machine went online (November 1999): alpha-linux-libc6 10 alpha-osf3 3 alpha-osf4 13 amiga 20 cygwin32 42 dec5000-ultrix 7 dos 157 hp9000s800 38 i386-freebsd30-elf 18 i386-linux-aout 11 i386-linux-libc5 33 i386-linux-libc6 98 i386-linux-libc6-redhat 233 i386-linux-libc6-slackware 1 i386-linux-libc6-suse 46 i386-netbsd 12 i386-next 6 i386-solaris26 7 i586-beos 19 m68k-linux-libc6 10 m68k-next 5 os2 15 powerpc-linux-libc6 21 powerpc-mklinux-libc6 11 rs6000 16 rs6000-aix42 5 sgi-irix53 5 sgi-irix62 28 sgi64-irix62 5 sparc-linux-libc6 5 sun4-solaris* 38 sun4-sunos4 3 win32 520 win95 -> win32 98 win98 -> win32 150 winnt -> win32 80 |
From: <do...@ni...> - 2000-04-04 14:15:54
|
Bruno Haible Approximate download numbers from the binaries directory on clisp.cons.org since the machine went online (November 1999): ... dos 157 Third highest number in the list ! So much for the theory that nobody needs clisp for dos any more. |
From: J`o'rg-Cyril H`o'h. <ho...@tz...> - 2000-04-04 14:23:34
|
Bruno Haible wrote: > amiga 20 Whow, incredible, I'm not alone :-) :-) Even more than m68k-next/linux together (15)... No m68k-netbsd or is it the same as Linux? The win32 numbers are huge. > dos 157 Dead live longer... Jörg Höhle. |
From: Bruno H. <ha...@il...> - 2000-04-04 14:39:54
|
Don Cohen writes: > ... > dos 157 > > Third highest number in the list ! > So much for the theory that nobody needs clisp for dos any more. Hmm, what they need is clisp for win32. Eli Zaretskii told me today: > Judging from the news group traffic > (which I read every day), I estimate that about 30-40% of DJGPP users > run the tools on plain DOS. The reason is that they are developing > games, and DOS is a better platform for that, since you have direct > access to the hardware. Since 3D games and direct hardware access are not possible with clisp anyway, the people downloading clisp for DOS can be assumed to be Windows users. Bruno |
From: <do...@ni...> - 2000-04-04 15:22:39
|
Bruno Haible Don Cohen writes: > ... > dos 157 > > Third highest number in the list ! > So much for the theory that nobody needs clisp for dos any more. Hmm, what they need is clisp for win32. Eli Zaretskii told me today: > Judging from the news group traffic > (which I read every day), I estimate that about 30-40% of DJGPP users > run the tools on plain DOS. The reason is that they are developing > games, and DOS is a better platform for that, since you have direct > access to the hardware. Since 3D games and direct hardware access are not possible with clisp anyway, the people downloading clisp for DOS can be assumed to be Windows users. It may be the case that those who got clisp for DOS would have been able to use clisp for windows just as well, but this surely does not follow from the info above. I suggest putting something in the readme file distributed with the dos binary that mentions that dos support may be dropped, and those who want it should let the developers know both that they want it and why. |
From: Bruno H. <ha...@il...> - 2000-04-04 16:01:16
|
Don Cohen writes: > It may be the case that those who got clisp for DOS would have been > able to use clisp for windows just as well, but this surely does not > follow from the info above. I suggest putting something in the readme > file distributed with the dos binary I just added a 00README to ftp://clisp.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/dos |
From: J`o'rg-Cyril H`o'h. <ho...@tz...> - 2000-04-07 13:10:15
|
Bruno Haible wrote: > dos 157 > win32 520 > win95 -> win32 98 > win98 -> win32 150 > winnt -> win32 80 Actually, one may be surprised that so many people use CLISP on Microbloat-disabled machines. Witness Chris Double saying in cll: " Overall I like Corman Lisp for it's small size and ease of interfacing with foreign functions (like the Windows API)." I didn't try it, but for my perceived needs on a MS-* PC, which is to extract information from stupid SAP/3, MS-Outlook, MS-Excel, MS-Word and other limited SW that I'm quasi oblied to use), I'd rather use a programming environment which would support some kind of DDE/OLE or COM or whatever I need to get these pieces I need. I believe CLISP has nothing in this area, except maybe sys::registry, while Cormon Lisp seems to excell at this. Some month ago, I tried to persuade people in clisp-lisp that doing a FFI for MS-* (and a useful enhancement for UNIX) shouldn't be that hard, when somebody said that IIRC COM was mostly needed. I can understand this claim. IMHO, the ability for an implementation to communicate with other parts of a system (or OS) is a most important feature. That's why back in 1992/3 the interface to ARexx in Amiga-CLISP was the first thing I added once I got CLISP running. That's how on my Amiga from within CLISP, I can direct Emacs to do something, send my spooled mail, tell my browser to load another document, and even query the TCP/IP stack status. Just my thoughts on this topic, Jörg Höhle. |
From: Raymond T. <to...@rt...> - 2000-04-18 21:44:42
|
>>>>> "Bruno" == Bruno Haible <ha...@il...> writes: Bruno> Approximate download numbers from the binaries directory on clisp.cons.org Bruno> since the machine went online (November 1999): [snip] How about source downloads? My download doesn't count because I downloaded the sources to compile myself. Ray |
From: Randall R S. <rrs...@cr...> - 2000-04-18 21:55:11
|
Ray, Then there are those of us with systems for which there is no binary installable download available. I use Linux/PPC, so for the latest version I had to download and build. Not a problem in itself, but it does lead to a systematic bias in the download statistics... Randall Schulz Mountain View, CA USA At 17:37 -0400 4/18/00, Raymond Toy wrote: > >>>>> "Bruno" == Bruno Haible <ha...@il...> writes: > > Bruno> Approximate download numbers from the binaries directory >on clisp.cons.org > Bruno> since the machine went online (November 1999): > >[snip] > >How about source downloads? > >My download doesn't count because I downloaded the sources to compile >myself. > >Ray > >_______________________________________________ >clisp-devel mailing list >cli...@li... >http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/clisp-devel |
From: Paolo A. <am...@mc...> - 2000-04-19 19:14:21
|
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:37:11 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: > How about source downloads? > > My download doesn't count because I downloaded the sources to compile > myself. I also download the CLISP source for my Red Hat 5.2 Linux box because binary RPMs don't support the version of glibc I use, i.e. 2.0.7. Besides, I have started building both MIT CLX and NCLX since the latest CLISP release. Paolo -- EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/ |