Subject: Re: "telnet clx", "portable CLX", and the various Lisps
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:58:13 -0600
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>
Paolo Amoroso  <> wrote:
| "C Y" <> 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			<>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607