Re: Reasons to choose CLISP over other free implementations

On Nov 28, 1:56 pm, Javier <javu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
- Much faster compiler speed, which is nice for big projects.

This has not been my experience at all. With a lot of my work, CLisp
is orders of magnitude slower compiling than SBCL. Furthermore, it's
orders of magnitude slower running the code, whether interpreted or
compiled. (To be fair, I'm still using 2.40, but that's only because
the upgrade using Macports fails to compile.)

I have other quibbles with CLisp. One of them is that with Slime, the
argument names that show up using slime-autodoc mode are nondescript
and not helpful. I often see "arg0", "arg1", etc. I use this a lot
and it's annoying when I forget the order of arguments to things like
NTH and ELT, for example.

I can't say I really enjoy using CLisp, to be quite honest. Mind you,
when I'm at a terminal (which is rare), it's considerably better to
use than most others.

.

Relevant Pages