🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35878@cornell.UUCP>, ken@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Ken Birman) writes:
> 
> 2) Could someone summarize the availability of Common LISP systems under
>    MACH?  At Cornell, people have been using Lucid and Allegro common
>    lisp, with recent interest in Harlequin because it apparently comes
>    closer to the symbolics environment.  Whats the picture under MACH?
>    Without a widely acceptable LISP, Cornell will resist switching to
>    MACH, needless to say...
>

So would CMU, my dear :-))
All Lisps that I know of that run on U*x-BSD run on Mach unmodified.
[Of course, since we are binary comaptible]

This is especially true for Lucid and Franz on the boxes where they run,
here we use them mostly on Suns, Vaxen and Pmaxen.
I believe Franz has a Lisp for the NeXT box, but I haven't used it.
CMU Common Lisp runs exclusively on IBM-RTs (for now) and provides an environment
even nicer than a symbolics (opinions..), for instance you can run compile
servers in parallel on remote machines (yes, from within the Hemlock editor).
KCL runs, of course, I made it run on the Pmax when Allegro was not available.

There are also a wealth of Schemes, included Dave Kranz' T for the Pmax.
And Multilisp (I ported it to lots of Mach boxes)  and Mul-T (Encore-Mach,
Dave Kranz with some help from myself).
And we have a variety of internal ``smaller'' lisps, like the very cute
Oaklisp one.

I don't know about Harlequin (when we tested it was a little rough, and 
people preferred Franz), but you can bet it would run just fine.

Gee, I hope it's enough.
sandro-
PS: Apologies in advance for any accidental omission, feel free to post 
about it.