Re: MCL vs. Allegro?

[evins@newhavensmtp.apple.com (mikel evins)]

In article <9112041818.AA15844@opal.aca.mcc.com> bohrer@mcc.com (Bill 
Bohrer) writes:
> kaye@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Jonathan Kaye) writes:
>
>    I am interested in porting a large application in Lucid (with minimal
>    usage of CLOS) to the Macintosh and wanted to know basically why
>    people have gone with MCL over Allegro (or other available Lisps, for
>    that matter).
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't MCL the only CLtL2 lisp with clos
> available for the MAC? If you have a MAC and need lisp that conforms
> to CLtL2, with CLOS, I'm pretty sure you only HAVE one choice.

Procyon Common Lisp also supports CLOS. I don't know if the
rest of it conforms to CLtL2, but it used to conform to
CLtL1, and had pd versions of LOOP and some other stuff.

> I'm awful sure Allegro doesn't have 4.0 for anything other than Sparcs;
> while it's a swell lisp, it's useless if you need to support myriad
> architectures like we do here.

There used to be a version of Allegro available for
the Mac, but it only ran under A/UX. It may still be
available, I don't know. There is a point
of possible confusion in that MCL used to be called
Macintosh Allegro Common Lisp in a previous life, when
it was still a Coral Software product.