Subject: Re: CMU CL vs. CLISP?
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/07/25
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* (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.

  suppose we blasted all politicians into space.
  would the SETI project find even one of them?