Re: Reasons to choose CLISP over other free implementations
- From: Javier <javuchi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:13:39 -0800 (PST)
On 28 nov, 20:45, "John Thingstad" <jpth...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To slow with byte interpretation. I might as well use python..
Python is not Lisp: doesn't have closures, macros and CLOS. And it is
still much slower than CLISP. So I don't get your point.
Note that CLISP, even being bytecode compiled, is faster than SBCL in
some areas (and slower in others, of course).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Reasons to choose CLISP over other free implementations
- From: Matthew D. Swank
- Re: Reasons to choose CLISP over other free implementations
- From: Slobodan Blazeski
- Re: Reasons to choose CLISP over other free implementations
- References:
- Reasons to choose CLISP over other free implementations
- From: Javier
- Re: Reasons to choose CLISP over other free implementations
- From: John Thingstad
- Reasons to choose CLISP over other free implementations
- Prev by Date: Re: NYC LOCAL: Thursday 29 November 2007 UNIGROUP: Heow Eide-Goodman on Ruby on Rails
- Next by Date: Re: Reasons to choose CLISP over other free implementations
- Previous by thread: Re: Reasons to choose CLISP over other free implementations
- Next by thread: Re: Reasons to choose CLISP over other free implementations
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|