Related to my other CL question.
+7
A:
If it's OK to go the other way around, you can access .Net from your favourite Lisp through Edi Weitz' RDNZL.
Mikael Jansson
2008-09-21 07:09:11
+5
A:
No, but you might want to consider IronScheme running on the DLR.
From the website:
IronScheme will aim to be a R6RS conforming Scheme implementation based on the Microsoft DLR.
IronScheme will be a complete rewrite of IronLisp incorporating lessons learnt while developing IronLisp.
Michiel Borkent
2008-09-21 07:22:14
The author of IronScheme is a user here: http://stackoverflow.com/users/15541/leppie
Kyle Cronin
2008-09-22 16:29:43
+9
A:
I haven't looked at it recently, but at least in the past there were some problems with fully implementing common lisp on the CLR, and I'd be a little surprised if this has changed. The issues come up with things like the handling of floats where .net/clr has a way to do it that is a) subtly incorrect b) disagrees with the ANSI standard for common lisp but c) doesn't allow any way around this. There are other similar problems. This stuff is fiddly and perhaps not too important, but means you are unlikely to see an ANSI CL on the CLR.
There are bigger issues, for example common lisp has a more powerful object system, so you can't map it 1:1 to object in the runtime (no MI, for one). This is ok, but leaves you with an inside/outside sort of approach which is what a common runtime tries to avoid...
Whether or not you'll see a common lisp-ish variant running on it is a different story, but I don't know of any at the moment (not that I've looked hard)
simon
2008-09-22 16:26:30
You can use the MOP to adopt any object model you want. Not so sure about how to handle the numeric edge cases problem though.
jfm3
2008-09-23 17:56:09
@jfm3: yes, there is a lot you can do, but it won't get rid of the impedence mismatch between CLOS and the runtime's object system. Being a more general system, CLOS would still have to marshall stuff and out of the runtime as objects. You can make this livable using MOP, but not exactly native.
simon
2008-09-24 22:01:40
+2
A:
Reconsidering this question from 2008 in 2010, you now might want to consider Clojure on the CLR. It's not Common Lisp, but it will be fairly easy to learn if you are coming from that direction. Interoperating with the CLR is dead-easy, it takes on more users every day and addresses several other important topics like concurrency. Might be worth investing some time in it. More CLR specific Clojure info here.
Michiel Borkent
2010-04-05 17:32:56