Paolo Amoroso <email@example.com> wrote:
| "C Y" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
| > ...CMUCL and Clisp both seem to have their own versions
| GNU CLISP comes with two CLX implementations, MIT CLX and NCLX. The
| former, which is written in Lisp, has its roots in the original MIT/TI
| work on CLX. NCLX (New CLX) is a C implementation with the same Lisp
| interface of CLX. If I recall correctly, NCLX in now the preferred
| CLX for CLISP and MIT CLX is deprecated.
But that's only because CLISP lacks a compiler to native code, yes?
So somebody did a C implementation to get speed faster than CLISP's
byte-code compiler could give. Should CLISP add compilation to native
code some day, that "deprecation" might be reversed.
CMUCL, already having a compiler to native code, would gain nothing
(and lose much maintainability) by switching from MIT CLX to NCLX.
[I can't speak for MIT CLX versus telent CLX.]
Rob Warnock <email@example.com>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607