Windows installer with another lisp. Which should I choose?

I forgot to mention an easy way to adjust the STACK SIZE in SBCL:
-------
I found an obscure small Cygwin command-line utility called 'peflags' that can be used to change the amount of stack for _any_ Windows executable -- not just Cygwin exectables.

Thus, I was able to change the stack size for SBCL Lisp with the following command line command in the appropriate directory under 'Program Files':

   Query the current stack-reserve setting

command> peflags --stack-reserve sbcl.exe
sbcl.exe: stack reserve size    : 2097152 (0x200000) bytes

   Provide a new stack-reserve setting

command> peflags --stack-reserve=0x1000000 sbcl.exe
sbcl.exe: stack reserve size    : 16777216 (0x1000000) bytes

After doing increasing the stack size on SBCL, my program ran just fine (and considerably faster than GCL, as well).

Note that sbcl.exe is a relatively small program which loads the main sbcl.core image.  Nevertheless, sbcl.exe sets the amount of stack for the whole program.

'peflags' can also adjust other settings, as well, including heap size, etc.

I have no idea if 'peflags' will work correctly on 64-bit applications, though.

Unfortunately, using peflags on GCL doesn't help, because GCL doesn't use the standard stack for its 'bind stack'.

But at least we now know how to increase the stack size on SBCL !
---------------------------
At 08:40 PM 9/18/2013, Henry Baker wrote:
>It looks like SBCL may have the most sophisticated (free) Lisp, and
>appears to go well beyond the CLtL1 spec that is supported by GCL.
>
>I suspect that much of the sophistication of SBCL is lost on
>Maxima in terms of performance gains, though, because Maxima
>has too many side-effects.
>
>Nevertheless, SBCL has a 64-bit version, and supports modern
>character sets.
>
>The good news about SBCL is that its tighter type system catches
>many bugs during compilation instead of at run-time, which is a
>very good thing.  It may take longer to get Maxima running in
>SBCL, but it's probably worth the effort.
>
>I often work in SBCL during code development for this reason,
>because SBCL is able to catch more bugs.
>
>At 08:01 PM 9/18/2013, David Billinghurst wrote:
>>I am considering making an experimental windows installer with an alternate lisp.
>>
>>An recommendations on which lisp should I try?  I have successfully built windows binaries with most of the free lisps that work on windows, but haven't built an installer with anything but gcl.