--- Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From my point of view main advantage of CCL is that it is quite > portable. Also, it looks that CCL can be cross-compiled with > basically the same effort as for native build. There is also > licencing issue: IIUC CCL licence is pretty liberal when somebody > wants to deliver closed source program on top of CCL, but is > GPL incompatible. Big disadvantage is lack of Ansi compatibility.
Lack of ANSI compatibility is a killer, IMHO. Any sense of how far from ANSI it is? CMUCL and SBCL are both very liberal about licensing IIRC, so they can serve as a deployment platform for that type of thing. Also, if someone wants to go closed source they are probably well advised to take a look at Allegro. > Clisp is also quite portable, so it is possible that CCL offers > no advantages over clisp (but this requires more analysis). I think the main issue there is the performance of Clisp, which IIRC is quite slow compared to CMUCL et. al. Cheers, CY ____________________________________________________________________________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
