C Y wrote:
> > 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.
>
Well, slow program gets answers faster than program which does not
work at all. CCL/Clisp are good solutions is situations when
gcl/sbcl/cmucl do not work.
Both Clisp and CCL are bytecode interpreters, so for can not be very
fast, but are faster than many folks would think hearing "interpreter".
ATM I can not say which one is faster CCL or clisp.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
