Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
The speed issue is not much of a direct concern for me. Note that for some applications Clisp is actually faster than SBCL, but this is limmited to that class of programs which do on the fly compilation as their main computation. Clisp has an simple, non-optimizing, blindingly-fast bytecode compiler. Steve _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
