Article View: comp.lang.clos
Article #594Re: CLOS' popularity (really Lisp vs C, again)
From: Thomas M. Breuel
Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 18:46
Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 18:46
16 lines
1437 bytes
1437 bytes
In article <13715@goofy.Apple.COM> shebs@Apple.COM (Stan Shebs) writes: An observation: it's easier to push *up* from a base language than *down*. [...] Experienced Lisp programmers, however, start out high-level, and build even higher-level functionality, but have a terrible time trying to optimize the lower-level machinery that limits performance. That's not entirely true. Sure, the most commonly used Lisp dialects, CommonLisp and Scheme, were poorly designed from the point of view of being able to specify low-level optimizations. However, this is not an inherent problem with Lisp. Individual implementations of Lisp dialects, like T and AKCL, let you hand-optimize down to the machine level. The only problem is that the necessary language constructs are not part of any standard. Thomas.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<TMB.91May29144641@volterra.ai.mit.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mintaka!ai-lab!life!tmbReferences:
<9105131105.AA13630@hcsrnd> <9105181833.AA05092@rice-chex> <1991May28.033548.26907@cs.cmu.edu> <13715@goofy.Apple.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mintaka!ai-lab!life!tmb From: tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) Newsgroups: comp.lang.clos Subject: Re: CLOS' popularity (really Lisp vs C, again) Message-ID: <TMB.91May29144641@volterra.ai.mit.edu> Date: 29 May 91 18:46:41 GMT References: <9105131105.AA13630@hcsrnd> <9105181833.AA05092@rice-chex> <1991May28.033548.26907@cs.cmu.edu> <13715@goofy.Apple.COM> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Distribution: inet Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab Lines: 16 In-reply-to: shebs@Apple.COM's message of 29 May 91 17:59:43 GMT