[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Common Lisp for SUNS
- To: Bill Pase <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Common Lisp for SUNS
- From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK@f.ila.dialnet.symbolics.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 88 23:42 EST
- In-reply-to: <8811291614.AA01479@red.ipsa.dnd.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 88 11:14:29 EST
From: email@example.com (Bill Pase)
I'm especially interested in the run time performance, since we hope
to use one of these lisps as a delivery vehicle for code developed on
Symbolics Computers. (It'd be real nice if the lisp benchmark data
was available?) Of course if anyone has experiences with using these
systems as a development environment, I'd not mind hearing it.
I have only subjective things to give you, but you will be astonished at the
performance difference between KCL and any Symbolics machine. I've only done
close-in comparisons with a Symbolics system with minimum memory, running on a
large Sun-3. For realistic size problems (like compilation, for instance),
KCL is pretty slow. Well, compilation isn't really a fair choice since it has
to get compiled twice; once in Lisp and once in C.
It is also pretty weak in the development arena. I would choose either of the
other two alternatives you list. The major feature of KCL is that it is
nearly free, but remember, Time is Money, too.
There is also a third choice: Ibuki Common Lisp, which is an improved version
of KCL. It is supposedly much more usable for development, with a lot of work
done on the debugger, etc. I don't know anything about its performance. I
don't know its price, but I suspect it's less than the other two.
There's also a fourth choice, another version of KCL, which I don't know much