Re: Reasons to choose CLISP over other free implementations

On Nov 28, 8:34 pm, Javier <javu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://sbcl.boinkor.net/bench/

Here you can see that CLISP is still about 2x faster than SBCL
compiling things, and not only compiling, but a lot of other useful
stuff, like defining CLOSS classes and instantiating them, and
printing strings (useful for web serving).

Hrm... I'll have to take a closer look at those CLOS benchmarks,
although I can't help noticing that SBCL is much faster with method
calls. My programs tend to call methods a lot more than they define
classes. As for instantiation, it seems CLisp is much slower on
simple-instantiate than SBCL. I'm curious what the benchmark code
is. (I didn't see links to code anywhere on that page.)

One more thing: starting Slime is faster when you use CLISP. Not very
important, but an indicative of how fast is CLISP compiling and
loading compiled files.

It only says how fast it is at compiling and loading the files for
Slime. I've had some files consistently compile ten times faster with
SBCL than Clisp, although I'll grant I may be working on outlier
cases.

Consider CLISP for web, string manipulation, and CLOS. It is a very
capable Lisp distribution for these areas.

I doubt the CLOS claims, but if I end up doing work in those areas, I
won't rule it out. Still, CLisp hasn't exactly worked up a good
rapport with me, so I can't say I have a lot of confidence in it.
That, and I've become enamoured with Allegro CL of late.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What open source implementation of Lisp do you prefer and why?
    ... I use it to develop lisp programs, ...  with clisp even more often). ... Slime and SBCL) and look forward to finally getting Lisp ... compiling it with sbcl gives more nitpicking errors or ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Reasons to choose CLISP over other free implementations
    ... is orders of magnitude slower compiling than SBCL. ... Here you can see that CLISP is still about 2x faster than SBCL ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: CLISP vs. CMUCL vs. SBCL
    ... > CMUCL: Good, fast compiler. ... What are the best points of CLISP other than portability? ... Between CMUCL and SBCL, how would one choose between these? ... > support CMUCL also seem to support SBCL, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Bootstrapping SBCL with CLISP on OS X 10.3.1
    ... > build it using CLISP from Darwin Ports. ... > sure what to fix or how to fix it. ... because while SBCL makes an effort to work in ANSI lisps, ... > compile from x86 Linux to PPC OS X? ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Bootstrapping SBCL with CLISP on OS X 10.3.1
    ... I have the CVS checkout of SBCL from a few hours ago. ... build it using CLISP from Darwin Ports. ... I used the 'sh make.sh clisp' command. ... I had an older version of SBCL but the upgrade to Panther broke it. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)