Subject: Re: CMU CL vs. CLISP? From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 1999/07/25 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * firstname.lastname@example.org (Pierpaolo Bernardi) | Allegro doesn't grok them [inline functions] either. Allegro CL inlines system functions, but not user-defined functions. various measures can be used to obtain the speed effect without the code bloat effect. | I don't understand this. You are complaining that built-in fuctions | are too fast? it's very valid concern with CLISP because it means that any attempt to make use of the powerful abstractions that Common Lisp offers will cost you a tremendous lot in performance. the code that people write in CLISP looks like Lisp Assembler -- they go to great lengths to use built-in functions for speed. | Should be easy to fix. Just insert a delay in the interpreter loop | whenever a built-in function is called. You may even make this delay | so big as to make build-it-yourself functions more convenient, thus | encouraging constructing abstractions. I take it that you mean that encouraging abstraction is bad. if so, I concede that CLISP offers you the best choice, bar none. #:Erik -- suppose we blasted all politicians into space. would the SETI project find even one of them?