🚀 go-pugleaf

re: This is not to pick on Lucid's native CLOS at all;  indeed, from other
    benchmarks, many of the commercial vendor's CLOS's seem to have a similar 

First, Lucid's 4.1 release shows a "naked slot value" time about a
factor of two faster than the 4.0.2 time; so that would tend to defuse
these statistics a bit.

But much more importantly is to look at SLOT-VALUE in an open-codable
context; Lucid's implementations  show almost an order of magnitude
speed up over "naked slot value", and the 4.1 release even obeys all
the MOP'ish concerns.  This context is usually (1) within the lexical
scope of a defmethod, (2) object is lexically recognizable as one of
the specialized parameters, and (3) slot name is compile-time constant.
[PCL used to have this sort of context-dependent optimization also,
but without the automated invalidation for MOP'ish concerns.]  

Your numbers somehow don't seem to be consistent for this case --
I get 173,913 on a Sparc2, where you get 35,000 on a Sparc1.  The
two hardware platforms aren't _that_ much different, are they?  Secondly,
this benchmark is mostly measuring the slot-optimization context setup
time and not the slot-access time.  The benchmark should be re-written
to do, say, 10 slot-accesses in each WITH-SLOT's or DEFMETHOD form.




-- JonL --