[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ad-hoc vs. planned subsets.
- To: cl-subsets@su-ai.ARPA
- Subject: Re: ad-hoc vs. planned subsets.
- From: Jed Marti <marti@randgr>
- Date: 25 Oct 84 10:24:47 PDT (Thu)
- Cc: randgr!hearn@randgr
- In-reply-to: Your message of Wed 24 Oct 84 20:36:45-PDT. <8410250339.AA24984@rand-unix.ARPA>
Reasons for CL subsets:
Another reason for subsets is the efficiency issue. Many of our application
programs are incredibly slow, to the point where the programs are being
rewritten in other languages. We spent two frustrating man years
converting a large Interlisp program into C (still not complete), the sole
reason being speed. I cannot justify the view that once an application is
developed it should be converted into a static procedural language for
efficiency. It is too costly and fosters the conviction that it should have
been written in that medium in the first place.
I believe that a CL subset designed for speed is one that best serves
1) a fast subset has fewer function calls to a smaller "library"
2) it has a better chance of being CONSless than a system with hidden
3) the human interface can be isolated and extracted when not needed
Jed Marti MARTI@RAND-UNIX