> * mikel evins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-15 13:46:48 -0800]: > > Yes; I am soliciting discussion on the group mailing list about > whether CLISP can perform well enough.
In that case, it might make sense to ask a CLISP list rather than CMUCL/SBCL. In my experience, CLISP is perfectly adequate performance-wise. (OTOH, I use it for processing huge datasets on AMD64 which cannot be handled by 32-bit CMUCL due to addressable memory size.) > In the old days of SK8, certain functions were sometimes written in > LAP to make them fast enough, so there is some skepticism about a > bytecode implementation. CLISP modules offer an easy way to write speed-critical functionality in C/C++/Fortran/assembly &c -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k <http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/> <http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com> Please wait, MS Windows are preparing the blue screen of death.
